Hey guys--I don't want to go too far from the original example but help me out with this example conversation:

Theist: Why don't you go to church? 

Me: I am atheist
Theist: Why?
Me: Because I hold no belief in a god or gods
Theist: You believe god doesn’t exist?
Me: I have no god belief.
Theist: Prove a god doesn't exist.

Who would hold the positive claim in this example?

This stuff seems so over my head 

"Death is nothing to us, since while we exist, death is not present, and whenever death is present, we do not exist."

Now for my response. You actually missed the point of my claim in your reiteration. My point is that anyone who makes a single positive claim, that is a claim of certainty of any given position I just used the god/not god thing as an example as I actually saw on this site that being done with other things that had nothing to do with god/not god arguments, is now subject to the burden of proof if someone asks them to prove their positive claim.

 

I can't imagine anyone arguing with this so long as "proof" means "as unlikely to be false as can be imagined."

 

In an argumen in which both sides state their position as though they are certain they are correct both sides are now subject to the burden of proof if both sides ask for proof. It doesn't matter if your claim is original. If you make a claim as though you are certain you are correct you must have evidence right? How can we be certain of anything without evidence unless our claim is based on faith? Feel free to tell me. Just because someone may be wrong on specifics doesn't mean that person is wrong in general. If an atheist wants to claim with certainty that there is no god and actually phrase that claim in any way which allows no room for uncertainty, then that atheist should be prepared to prove his point if asked to, even if he didn't make the first positive claim, because it would be intellectually dishonest to expect someone else to prove their position while thinking you shouldn't be expected to prove yours.

 

 

Having the title "theist" comes with a positive claim. An atheist saying "god does not exist" is in reference to this claim, not the claim about any hypothetical as of yet undefined god. The atheist's rejection is reliant on the fact that the theist made something up and made an unsubstantiated claim as to its existence. Anything you make up is false until some shread of reliable evidence says otherwise. There is no value in any other position.

 

Also it is not obviously the case that atheists are not sitting around imagining the things they believe don't exist. Perhaps this isn't the best phrasing, however atheists have demonstrated that they give considerable thought to the question of the nonexistence of god even on this site. Look at the numerous essays on the subject. It would be ignoring reality a little to assert that atheists don't start a debate in any available forum where theists might be present by going in and then asserting without provokation that god does not exist. I spend a lot of time in christian chatrooms and I have personally seen atheists do this several times. Usually these are also the kind who like to make the assertion and then insult everyone who disagrees...not a good representation of my personal position, I don't appreciate that. But that's neither here nor there. It happens and that's what I was trying to say there.

 

Forgive my poor phrasing. What I meant to say is that atheists are not INVENTING in their imagination claims which they deny. Atheists instead say, "please provide the evidence (proof) for your invented claim. Else, false."

 

There's no real evidence for String Theory either, I don't see anyone in here arguing that String Theory is irrational.

 

Believing that string theory is an accurate description of the universe IS IRRATIONAL. This is precisely because string theory is as of yet undefined (uniquely). People argue this all the time. This is actually a wonderful example of my point. Until a string theorist can define string theory uniquely and provide some proof, it cannot be the truth. Therefore, it is perfect reasonable to say "string theory does not exist as a description of the universe."

Hey guys--I don't want to go too far from the original example but help me out with this example conversation:

Theist: Why don't you go to church? 

Me: I am atheist
Theist: Why?
Me: Because I hold no belief in a god or gods
Theist: You believe god doesn’t exist?
Me: I have no god belief.
Theist: Prove a god doesn't exist.

Who would hold the positive claim in this example?

This stuff seems so over my head 

 

No one is.  Neither person made any claim that was a statement of certainty.  All you would have to do to respond is point out that the theist is reading too much into what you've said.  You never asserted at any point in that discussion that no god does exist, just that you have never seen or at least don't currently assume that any god does exist.

Who would hold the positive claim in this example?

This stuff seems so over my head

 

Nobody would. The reason is because no positive claim wasmade.

So if I were to have said to him: "I don't go to church because god doesn't exist " OR if he would have responded to me : "you should go to church because god exists"  then there would have been a positive claim. Right? 

"Death is nothing to us, since while we exist, death is not present, and whenever death is present, we do not exist."

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

Now for my response. You actually missed the point of my claim in your reiteration. My point is that anyone who makes a single positive claim, that is a claim of certainty of any given position I just used the god/not god thing as an example as I actually saw on this site that being done with other things that had nothing to do with god/not god arguments, is now subject to the burden of proof if someone asks them to prove their positive claim.

 

 

 

I can't imagine anyone arguing with this so long as "proof" means "as unlikely to be false as can be imagined."

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

 

In an argumen in which both sides state their position as though they are certain they are correct both sides are now subject to the burden of proof if both sides ask for proof. It doesn't matter if your claim is original. If you make a claim as though you are certain you are correct you must have evidence right? How can we be certain of anything without evidence unless our claim is based on faith? Feel free to tell me. Just because someone may be wrong on specifics doesn't mean that person is wrong in general. If an atheist wants to claim with certainty that there is no god and actually phrase that claim in any way which allows no room for uncertainty, then that atheist should be prepared to prove his point if asked to, even if he didn't make the first positive claim, because it would be intellectually dishonest to expect someone else to prove their position while thinking you shouldn't be expected to prove yours.

 

 

 

 

Having the title "theist" comes with a positive claim. An atheist saying "god does not exist" is in reference to this claim, not the claim about any hypothetical as of yet undefined god. The atheist's rejection is reliant on the fact that the theist made something up and made an unsubstantiated claim as to its existence. Anything you make up is false until some shread of reliable evidence says otherwise. There is no value in any other position.

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

 

Also it is not obviously the case that atheists are not sitting around imagining the things they believe don't exist. Perhaps this isn't the best phrasing, however atheists have demonstrated that they give considerable thought to the question of the nonexistence of god even on this site. Look at the numerous essays on the subject. It would be ignoring reality a little to assert that atheists don't start a debate in any available forum where theists might be present by going in and then asserting without provokation that god does not exist. I spend a lot of time in christian chatrooms and I have personally seen atheists do this several times. Usually these are also the kind who like to make the assertion and then insult everyone who disagrees...not a good representation of my personal position, I don't appreciate that. But that's neither here nor there. It happens and that's what I was trying to say there.

 

 

 

Forgive my poor phrasing. What I meant to say is that atheists are not INVENTING in their imagination claims which they deny. Atheists instead say, "please provide the evidence (proof) for your invented claim. Else, false."

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

 

There's no real evidence for String Theory either, I don't see anyone in here arguing that String Theory is irrational.

 

 

 

 

Believing that string theory is an accurate description of the universe IS IRRATIONAL. This is precisely because string theory is as of yet undefined (uniquely). People argue this all the time. This is actually a wonderful example of my point. Until a string theorist can define string theory uniquely and provide some proof, it cannot be the truth. Therefore, it is perfect reasonable to say "string theory does not exist as a description of the universe."

 

You've misunderstood what a positive claim is.  A positive claim is any claim made with certainty.  Meaning that you are positive of the correctness of the claim you are making.  A positive claim could also be called an assertion.  My point is that as far as anyone can really know, the antithesis to the theist claim that there is a god, namely that there is no god, is an assertion without proof.  But that's irrelevant, if you do have proof then you can accept the burden of proof if you make that claim directly in a debate.  My point is that if you make any claim in a debate and someone asks you to prove it, if you worded your claim in such a way that it can be easily interpreted as a statement of certainty, you must have proof to back it up.  Assuming you're rational, of course.  An irrational person can be expected to make a positive claim without proof and when that person is incapable of proving their position they can be reasonably dismissed.  But if a rational person makes any positive claim and demurs from proving it when asked, or worse yet tells the other person that they don't have to prove their claim it's the other person's job to prove it wrong or prove their claim.  That's just not rational.

That's basically like saying you are not subject to the same standards of truth as other people.  How is that intellectually honest?

I can also disagree with your assertion that atheists are not inventing in their imagination claims which they deny.  Atheists, when they attempt to disprove god, invent in their imagination subjective definitions of god that serve as straw men which they can knock down.  I don't assume that god exists, so I don't care except that this is a dishonest practice.  Before anyone can derive a valid definition of the concept of god we need to determine and objective method for that derivation.  No one has proposed such a method that doesn't assume that such an entity cannot exist durring the process of the derivation of the definition.  These would be made up god definitions which are invented by atheists solely for the purpose of making their proof possible.

Also no one believes that string theory is an accurate description of the universe, but they do believe that string theory is a rational theory without evidence.  Some even believe without evidence that string theory is true.  They base this purely on mathematical arguments.  That's perfectly valid.  Nothing about mathematics says that mathematics is required to correspond to reality.  What makes this rational, though, is that the people who hold this belief in the validity of String Theory are aware of their reasons for it.  Nothing wrong with that.

Ever since I've been visiting the forums here I've been reading posts over 'burden of proof' problems. I totally understand the legal use, but how does everyone deduce that someone has the burden of proof or not? Most of the comments here seem to argue from base assumptions of the two sides, but how does everyone 'know' that one bears the burden of proof or not?

Personally, when someone tells me that something is true without any evidence, it doesn't matter if they have the burden of proof or I do. If it is true and 'knowable', then I should be able to find conclusive evidence supporting it's existance.

So if I were to have said to him: "I don't go to church because god doesn't exist " OR if he would have responded to me : "you should go to church because god exists"  then there would have been a positive claim. Right? 

 

That's correct then someone would have made a positive claim and that someone would be subject to the burden of proof.

Right?

 

Right. 

Ever since I've been visiting the forums here I've been reading posts over 'burden of proof' problems. I totally understand the legal use, but how does everyone deduce that someone has the burden of proof or not? Most of the comments here seem to argue from base assumptions of the two sides, but how does everyone 'know' that one bears the burden of proof or not?

Personally, when someone tells me that something is true without any evidence, it doesn't matter if they have the burden of proof or I do. If it is true and 'knowable', then I should be able to find conclusive evidence supporting it's existance.

 

Anytime anyone makes any statement that leaves no room for uncertainty.  As in if a person makes a statement along the lines of "I know..." or "...is impossible", or anything that leaves no room for uncertainty, that person opens them up to having to prove their position.  A rational person should never make such a claim if that rational person knows he cannot back up that claim with proof.  If a person makes such a claim in a debate, that person should expect, and be willing, to prove it.  Not say it's up to the other person to prove it wrong, or prove the opposite.

Anytime anyone makes any statement that leaves no room for uncertainty.  As in if a person makes a statement along the lines of "I know..." or "...is impossible", or anything that leaves no room for uncertainty, that person opens them up to having to prove their position.  A rational person should never make such a claim if that rational person knows he cannot back up that claim with proof.  If a person makes such a claim in a debate, that person should expect, and be willing, to prove it.  Not say it's up to the other person to prove it wrong, or prove the opposite.

 

Oops, I should add that when someone says "...is impossible" without prefacing or otherwise qualifying it with a phrase that implies that it's your opinion.  That wasn't a good example in general, though, heh.  But basically just any statement made with certainty.

Personally, when someone tells me that something is true without any evidence, it doesn't matter if they have the burden of proof or I do. If it is true and 'knowable', then I should be able to find conclusive evidence supporting it's existance.

 

It goes further than this, though. If somebody says that they have done something, or example, pooped out a snowman, that is a positive claim. When a positive claim is made, that is, when somebody says something that says that something happened/existed, then the burden of proof lies on them and them alone. It doesn't matter what kind of claim it is... god, santa, snowmen, etc. If the person is unable to support his claim then, for the purpose of the discussion, the entity/even does not exist or did not happen.

Now, here is where the issue lies. Many people confuse the following two statements as meaning the same thing although they mean two completely different things.

I don't believe a god exists.

There is no god.

The first does not make any claim aside from a personal belief. The second makes a positive claim to the existance of something. However, it goes deeper than that.

When someone says that there is no god, there is no way to prove that there isn't. It's much like disproving the existance of the celestial teapot. It simply does not work and, in the same sense, there is no way to prove that there is. Either way, making a positive claim on the existance of god is simply not possible as the following burden of proof would lay on you... and since such things can not be proven or disproven, it's perfectly reasonable to fall to the statement of "I don't know."

It goes further than this, though. If somebody says that they have done something, or example, pooped out a snowman, that is a positive claim. When a positive claim is made, that is, when somebody says something that says that something happened/existed, then the burden of proof lies on them and them alone. It doesn't matter what kind of claim it is... god, santa, snowmen, etc. If the person is unable to support his claim then, for the purpose of the discussion, the entity/even does not exist or did not happen.

Now, here is where the issue lies. Many people confuse the following two statements as meaning the same thing although they mean two completely different things.

I don't believe a god exists.

There is no god.

The first does not make any claim aside from a personal belief. The second makes a positive claim to the existance of something. However, it goes deeper than that.

When someone says that there is no god, there is no way to prove that there isn't. It's much like disproving the existance of the celestial teapot. It simply does not work and, in the same sense, there is no way to prove that there is. Either way, making a positive claim on the existance of god is simply not possible as the following burden of proof would lay on you... and since such things can not be proven or disproven, it's perfectly reasonable to fall to the statement of "I don't know."

 

Yep that was basically my point in the OP, I expect creationists to pass the burden of proof off, they aren't rational, I don't expect people who I should hope would be more rational to be guilty of the same logical crimes.  "I don't know" is always an acceptable answer if it's honest.  It's creationists who don't want to see that, they have to feel like they know everything, so what they don't know they fill in with god.

Square circles do not exist.

 

OH RLY?

"What right have you to condemn a murderer if you assume him necessary to "God's plan"? What logic can command the return of stolen property, or the branding of a thief, if the Almighty decreed it?"
-- The Economic Tendency of Freethought

CrimsonEdge,

Do you think its reasonable to say "I don't know, but knowing all that I do, I can be pretty certain that X isn't true."?

[edit] 

Better:  "I don't know with 100% certainty, but knowing all that I do, I am certain that X isn't true." 

CrimsonEdge,

Do you think its reasonable to say "I don't know, but knowing all that I do, I can be pretty certain that X isn't true."?

 

Yes. This is where I'm unsure of the semantics, but I believe a positive claim still hasn't been made. Even if a positive claim is made, you've clarified that you do not know for sure, still leaving an air of uncertainty.

While we can all agree that there is not an elephant in our rooms, and we can all agree that no elephant exists in our rooms, this is different than simply saying "There are no Elephants."

I think the problem many have is that they are pre-supposing that something exists without being able to define it coherently... which is very important when trying to make a claim. If I were to say that there was a teapot flying in space, this might be a possibility as there could be a teapot in a space station... however, saying that it has any special properties puts it in the realm of the impossible.

A person does not use all of the definitions for a word when using it to refer to a thing that is relevant to only one definition or use of a word. To do otherwise would be to be incoherent. And that you understand what I've written is proof of exactly what I've written.
What you're problem is is that you don't see a way for anyone to definitively say that any claim is truth functionally false without having proof. But you're vague on what claims constitute or violate the necessary proof for you and where you've stated what claims are and aren't exempt from such proof you have been arbitrary. The fact here is that you are concerned with unimportant semantic games concerning the probability of existence of certain claims. When something approaches a certain area of probability such that it is highly unlikely to exist or if a claim is too extraordinary to be true, or if it can be logically shown to be incoherent or not possible, then I am comfortable stating that the claim is truth functionally false. Many people are. This is not dishonesty on their part. For all intents and purposes the types of claims I've mentioned either actually cannot or do not exist. That they may (and it is an extremely low 'may' ) is not something that anyone denies it is something that is entirely irrelevant when considering what we do know exists and what we know about what cannot exist. When the information changes and the probability of such things existing becomes orders of magnitude larger, I will cease to say that the Christian god does not exist and that Santa clause does neither. If you wish to carry on with your semantic preciseness, fell free, but I see no obvious benefit to the pursuit of such preciseness. It is wholly unhelpful to commit yourself to the possibility that maybe something exists when you first don't believe in it, and second admit that it is unlikely to exist. That is, rather, what I would call dishonest.

 

I'm actually not at all vague. Objectivity constitutes the means to validate a proof. In science we use falsifying expiriments to attempt to validate something objectively. The idea is that while a scientist believes that his theory may be true he designs an expiriment that could prove it false. If the expiriment doesn't the scientist's theory is validated. Scientists don't attempt to directly prove anything for good reason, and it's the reason why scientists only ask questions that know they can prove false through falsifying expiriments. That reason is that scientists know they don't know everything.

 

 

I don't need a lesson in flasification from you. This endeavour is pointless. Stop assuming that I'm a moron, or else don't address this kind of thing directly to me. I'm well aware of the scientific method.

 

Unless you can determine an objective method to come up with a definition for any relevant terms which can be shown to fit reality, your definitions are flawed. Any proofs based on flawed definitions is inherently flawed. It may be valid, and that's really all that logic cares about, but the argument will not be sound. And that's what rational people should care about, the use of logic not merely to make valid arguments, but to make sound arguments. That's what science cares about.

 

I don't need lessons on the difference and importance of valid logic and sound logic. The definitions used in relation to the god concept are well understood. There is no 'flaw' in the definition. If you would like to offer a definition of supernatural that can be said to refer to a god concept and present a coherent god concept, fell free. Until then, the logic is sound as well as valid.

 

Your statement that I don't seem to see that any claim is functionally false without having proof is also false. I don't assume that god exists, I don't assume that god doesn't exist, as in science, I see the claim as functionally false until it can be determined that the claim can be falsified. But that's not the point here. My point here is that I see a lot of people here passing off the burden of proof. Then in the emergent discussion that popped out of nowhere people abuse definitions. people propose definitions that will force their arguments to be valid without ever proving objectively that their definitions are accurate. How is that rational? I thought the point of this site was for people to be rational.

 

Very well. You believe the burden of proof is being passed off. Fine. I refuted that, but you seem to have ignored me. Again, if you wish to offer definitions other than those that are taken to refer to god when supernatural is used, please offer them.

 

The appeal to improbability you make is a favorite of creationists, it's been shown to be invalid. Also how do you calculate the probability of something you can't coherently define? Plus how does showing that something is incoherent as we understand it also prove that it doesn't or can't exist? You're assuming that if we can't understand it it can't exist? I have yet to see an argument for our supreme importance in the universe that wasn't inherently theistic. I will of course accept any valid and sound logical proof of the impossibility of anything, but such a proof is impossible by just abusing definitions.

 

I am not making the same probability claims that creationists make. Necessarily the probable existence of something that cannot be coherently defined is not quantifiable. There are coherent god concepts. I never even suggested that what cannot be understood cannot exist.

 

It was extremely unlikely that our universe would have the natural laws necessary to make us possible, at least as far as we know.

 

Except that this example is fallacious and my example is not. 

 

This is the argument from improbability that creationists latch on to. It was improbable to the point of being essentially impossible, so God must have done it? Foolishness.

 

Yes, foolishness. Not an argument I support. Don't put words into my mouth.

 

The argument from improbability assumes more knowledge than we have. Unless you can show me the probabilistic framework you used to determine the real probability of the existence of the supernatural there's no reason to even consider its probability.

 

I was referring to god concepts, not the supernatural. Some god concepts invoke the supernatural. Those would necessarily not be a part of this. I believe Dawkins successfully uses an argument of probability to discount god claims, however, there are better reasons to discount the god claim he used in his example.

 

Such a framework, however, can never exist without a coherent definition of the terms, and such a definition will never be without flaw unless an objective method can be determined by which we can derive it.

This was pointless as you put words into my mouth and then argued this straw man for most of your post.

You also ignored or failed to respond to this section of my post: 

 

 For all intents and purposes the types of claims I've mentioned either actually cannot or do not exist. That they may (and it is an extremely low 'may' ) is not something that anyone denies it is something that is entirely irrelevant when considering what we do know exists and what we know about what cannot exist. When the information changes and the probability of such things existing becomes orders of magnitude larger, I will cease to say that the Christian god does not exist and that Santa clause does neither. If you wish to carry on with your semantic preciseness, fell free, but I see no obvious benefit to the pursuit of such preciseness. It is wholly unhelpful to commit yourself to the possibility that maybe something exists when you first don't believe in it, and second admit that it is unlikely to exist. That is, rather, what I would call dishonest.

 

Care to take a stab? 

Many more wondrous things in this universe exist than can be explained by religion or can be the responsibility of god(s). As with spaghetti monsters and flying teapots, ghosts and miracles, reason, intellect and science do away with irrational notions.

Am I right in understanding "truth functionally false" to mean "false until proved true"?  I'm not familiar with that particular arrangement of words.

If my interpretation of your wording is correct, then I would think the OP would have no problem saying that a claim is "truth functionally false" because that would be refusing to accept someone else's positive claim in the absense of proof provided by that "someone else".  This is quite different from making an equally strong positive claim from the opposing point of view.

There is no arbitrary distinction between "No god exists" and "I won't accept your god belief unless you can supply evidence to support it."  Edit: I mean that the distinction is not arbitrary, not that there is no distinction.

The disagreement you and the OP seem to have reminds me of the explanation given to me for the difference between a practical mathematician and a theoretical mathematician.  The practical mathematician doesn't care whether something is actually true or not; he just cares whether or not using math in a certain way will get him the answers he's looking for.  In contrast, the theoretical mathematician follows a much more rigorous discipline whereby he won't accept anything as true, regardless of how obvious it appears, unless there is a valid mathematical proof to back it up.  From the practical mathematician's point of view, the theoretical mathematician is wasting time and energy worrying about obscure details that don't appear to matter.  But, the theoretical mathematician's discipline and inquisitiveness is much more likely to lead to the disproving of erroneous but "obvious" assumptions thereby advancing the state of mathematics as a whole.

Thomathy wrote:

A person does not use all of the definitions for a word when using it to refer to a thing that is relevant to only one definition or use of a word. To do otherwise would be to be incoherent. And that you understand what I've written is proof of exactly what I've written.
What you're problem is is that you don't see a way for anyone to definitively say that any claim is truth functionally false without having proof. But you're vague on what claims constitute or violate the necessary proof for you and where you've stated what claims are and aren't exempt from such proof you have been arbitrary. The fact here is that you are concerned with unimportant semantic games concerning the probability of existence of certain claims. When something approaches a certain area of probability such that it is highly unlikely to exist or if a claim is too extraordinary to be true, or if it can be logically shown to be incoherent or not possible, then I am comfortable stating that the claim is truth functionally false. Many people are. This is not dishonesty on their part. For all intents and purposes the types of claims I've mentioned either actually cannot or do not exist. That they may (and it is an extremely low 'may' ) is not something that anyone denies it is something that is entirely irrelevant when considering what we do know exists and what we know about what cannot exist. When the information changes and the probability of such things existing becomes orders of magnitude larger, I will cease to say that the Christian god does not exist and that Santa clause does neither. If you wish to carry on with your semantic preciseness, fell free, but I see no obvious benefit to the pursuit of such preciseness. It is wholly unhelpful to commit yourself to the possibility that maybe something exists when you first don't believe in it, and second admit that it is unlikely to exist. That is, rather, what I would call dishonest.

 

 

 

 

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

I'm actually not at all vague. Objectivity constitutes the means to validate a proof. In science we use falsifying expiriments to attempt to validate something objectively. The idea is that while a scientist believes that his theory may be true he designs an expiriment that could prove it false. If the expiriment doesn't the scientist's theory is validated. Scientists don't attempt to directly prove anything for good reason, and it's the reason why scientists only ask questions that know they can prove false through falsifying expiriments. That reason is that scientists know they don't know everything.

 

 

 

 

I don't need a lesson in flasification from you. This endeavour is pointless. Stop assuming that I'm a moron, or else don't address this kind of thing directly to me. I'm well aware of the scientific method.

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

 

Unless you can determine an objective method to come up with a definition for any relevant terms which can be shown to fit reality, your definitions are flawed. Any proofs based on flawed definitions is inherently flawed. It may be valid, and that's really all that logic cares about, but the argument will not be sound. And that's what rational people should care about, the use of logic not merely to make valid arguments, but to make sound arguments. That's what science cares about.

 

 

 

I don't need lessons on the difference and importance of valid logic and sound logic. The definitions used in relation to the god concept are well understood. There is no 'flaw' in the definition. If you would like to offer a definition of supernatural that can be said to refer to a god concept and present a coherent god concept, fell free. Until then, the logic is sound as well as valid.

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

 

Your statement that I don't seem to see that any claim is functionally false without having proof is also false. I don't assume that god exists, I don't assume that god doesn't exist, as in science, I see the claim as functionally false until it can be determined that the claim can be falsified. But that's not the point here. My point here is that I see a lot of people here passing off the burden of proof. Then in the emergent discussion that popped out of nowhere people abuse definitions. people propose definitions that will force their arguments to be valid without ever proving objectively that their definitions are accurate. How is that rational? I thought the point of this site was for people to be rational.

 

 

 

Very well. You believe the burden of proof is being passed off. Fine. I refuted that, but you seem to have ignored me. Again, if you wish to offer definitions other than those that are taken to refer to god when supernatural is used, please offer them.

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

 

The appeal to improbability you make is a favorite of creationists, it's been shown to be invalid. Also how do you calculate the probability of something you can't coherently define? Plus how does showing that something is incoherent as we understand it also prove that it doesn't or can't exist? You're assuming that if we can't understand it it can't exist? I have yet to see an argument for our supreme importance in the universe that wasn't inherently theistic. I will of course accept any valid and sound logical proof of the impossibility of anything, but such a proof is impossible by just abusing definitions.

 

 

 

I am not making the same probability claims that creationists make. Necessarily the probable existence of something that cannot be coherently defined is not quantifiable. There are coherent god concepts. I never even suggested that what cannot be understood cannot exist.

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

 

It was extremely unlikely that our universe would have the natural laws necessary to make us possible, at least as far as we know.

 

 

 

Except that this example is fallacious and my example is not. 

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

 

This is the argument from improbability that creationists latch on to. It was improbable to the point of being essentially impossible, so God must have done it? Foolishness.

 

 

 

Yes, foolishness. Not an argument I support. Don't put words into my mouth.

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

 

The argument from improbability assumes more knowledge than we have. Unless you can show me the probabilistic framework you used to determine the real probability of the existence of the supernatural there's no reason to even consider its probability.

 

 

 

I was referring to god concepts, not the supernatural. Some god concepts invoke the supernatural. Those would necessarily not be a part of this. I believe Dawkins successfully uses an argument of probability to discount god claims, however, there are better reasons to discount the god claim he used in his example.

DeathMunkyGod wrote:

 

Such a framework, however, can never exist without a coherent definition of the terms, and such a definition will never be without flaw unless an objective method can be determined by which we can derive it.

 

 

This was pointless as you put words into my mouth and then argued this straw man for most of your post.

You also ignored or failed to respond to this section of my post: 

Thomathy wrote:

 

 For all intents and purposes the types of claims I've mentioned either actually cannot or do not exist. That they may (and it is an extremely low 'may' ) is not something that anyone denies it is something that is entirely irrelevant when considering what we do know exists and what we know about what cannot exist. When the information changes and the probability of such things existing becomes orders of magnitude larger, I will cease to say that the Christian god does not exist and that Santa clause does neither. If you wish to carry on with your semantic preciseness, fell free, but I see no obvious benefit to the pursuit of such preciseness. It is wholly unhelpful to commit yourself to the possibility that maybe something exists when you first don't believe in it, and second admit that it is unlikely to exist. That is, rather, what I would call dishonest.

 

 

 

Care to take a stab? 

 

Actually what I call dishonest id all attempts to disprove the existence of something like for instance a god concept based on insufficient definitions.  You assert that the definitions used on this site are good, but the definitions you yourself suggested are not.  You also never once attempted to defend the definitions given on this site or the method of their derivation.  You never demonstrated that there was a valid and objective method for their derivation in any way.  But you still assert that the definitions are valid.  I've never seen a single objective definition of god proposed by anyone on this site who has attempted to disprove the possibility of a god concept.  I have never seen a single valid definition of supernatural from anyone has has ever tried to disprove the existence of the supernatural.  And I certainly haven't seen any valid definitions from you.

Am I right in understanding "truth functionally false" to mean "false until proved true"?  I'm not familiar with that particular arrangement of words.

If my interpretation of your wording is correct, then I would think the OP would have no problem saying that a claim is "truth functionally false" because that would be refusing to accept someone else's positive claim in the absense of proof provided by that "someone else".  This is quite different from making an equally strong positive claim from the opposing point of view.

There is no arbitrary distinction between "No god exists" and "I won't accept your god belief unless you can supply evidence to support it."  Edit: I mean that the distinction is not arbitrary, not that there is no distinction.

The disagreement you and the OP seem to have reminds me of the explanation given to me for the difference between a practical mathematician and a theoretical mathematician.  The practical mathematician doesn't care whether something is actually true or not; he just cares whether or not using math in a certain way will get him the answers he's looking for.  In contrast, the theoretical mathematician follows a much more rigorous discipline whereby he won't accept anything as true, regardless of how obvious it appears, unless there is a valid mathematical proof to back it up.  From the practical mathematician's point of view, the theoretical mathematician is wasting time and energy worrying about obscure details that don't appear to matter.  But, the theoretical mathematician's discipline and inquisitiveness is much more likely to lead to the disproving of erroneous but "obvious" assumptions thereby advancing the state of mathematics as a whole.

 

This is an excellent response, and I completely agree.  I guess I would be a theoretical mathematician in your analogy.  But I would have hoped more of the people here would have been.  Since the purpose of this site is to further the cause of reason.

I guess I would be a theoretical mathematician in your analogy.  But I would have hoped more of the people here would have been.  Since the purpose of this site is to further the cause of reason.

 

I am not as theoretical as I would like to be, but there are a few problems I've observed.  For one thing, rigorous mental discipline doesn't come naturally to most people, and in my experience Amgerican public schooling teaches "what" to think, not "how" to think (possibly in other countries as well)... so for many Americans (including me) any mental discipline is either self-taught, learned from parents, or learned as an adult.

Also, Gödel's incompleteness theorems are applicable not only to mathematics, but also to logical inquiry (as I think you probably already understand).  Practically speaking, though, that means that a person who tries to fully and formally reason out 1 single proposition can end up lost in thought which leads to nothing but the affirmation of our lack of knowledge.  This is compounded by the infinite possible propositions which could be considered... and the vast number of unconscious assumptions we make throughout our lives.  Given that we don't have infinite time to spend, there has to be some stopping point to the chain of investigative reasoning.  (If I'm not mistaken, this is the dilemma that epistemology attempts to address.)

Such a stopping point might be a definition, evidence, faith, an admission of uncertainty, or arguably even some fancy logical footwork.  Of these, the only candidate which cannot be challenged is the admission of uncertainty, and it's also the only candidate which provides no foundation for other reasoning to be built upon.

Prior to this thread, I would have said that a definition also cannot be challenged, although I was aware that it can be revealed to be useless for the purposes of a given debate (as per the begging the question logical fallacy).  If such a revallation is not what some posters in this thread mean when they say that a definition is "invalid", then I would greatly appreciate clarification of that concept.

As for the people who come to frequent this site, I imagine that we are extremely varied in our habits, beliefs, and histories... remember, theists post here too (just not so much in the Freethinkers Anonymous forum).  I'd like to think that we can all learn from each other here, but I have to say that when we're addressing topics like this one, all of these tangents become rather exhausting to try to keep track of... and with the speed of posts in this thread, it's also hard to keep up with.

The original post was with regards to where the burden of proof should lie and with the difference between a positive statement of disbelief and a negative statement of disbelief.  I think people got confused by the terms "positive statement" vs. "negative statement", which is understandable considering:

Positive Statement - an introduced proposition

Negative Statement - a disagreement with an introduced proposition

vs.

Positive Statement - a statement of affirmation

Negative Statement - a statement of denial

The statement "There is no god" would be considered a positive statement by the first set of definitions and a negative statement by the second.  I think the confusion over the two different meanings there led to a lot of miscommunication and people accidentally arguing against positions which were not even proposed.

I am not as theoretical as I would like to be, but there are a few problems I've observed.  For one thing, rigorous mental discipline doesn't come naturally to most people, and in my experience Amgerican public schooling teaches "what" to think, not "how" to think (possibly in other countries as well)... so for many Americans (including me) any mental discipline is either self-taught, learned from parents, or learned as an adult.

 

I guess I just always assumed that rational people should also be intellectually honest.  Intellectually honest people should be able to admit to themselves what they don't know, and when they're making assumptions.  They should be able to admit when they aren't being objective.  These things shouldn't be too hard to learn for anyone trying to be more rational.

I guess I just always assumed that rational people should also be intellectually honest.

 

That would seem to make sense, though I'm wondering if you consider intellectual honesty to mean ordinary honesty within the limited scope of intellectual thought and debate or if you have a different meaning. 

Intellectually honest people should be able to admit to themselves what they don't know, and when they're making assumptions.  They should be able to admit when they aren't being objective.

 

I would think that would require not only honesty but also an awareness and understanding of the ignorance, assumptions, or lack of objectivity in question.

These things shouldn't be too hard to learn for anyone trying to be more rational.

 

You might be surprised....  Depending on the person in question and what sort of life experiences the person is coming from, the transition to being a thoroughly disciplined universally rational thinker can be a very long one.

In the most extreme case, consider someone born and raised in a country where the government, all literature, and all media are strictly controlled by a fundamentalist religious group, and dissenters are killed without trial.  Where would such people even begin to learn to think rationally?  Now, if one of those people somehow managed to leave that country and live in a country where intellectual debate is permitted, they would have a lot of unlearning and then a lot of learning to do before they could live up to your expectations.  Frankly, the concept of "objectivity" might be completely foreign to such a person.

Furthermore, even people who seem to be in most topics of debate very rational and objective will usually have biases, assumptions, and strong emotional convictions on certain subjects.  This can be for a number of reasons, both intellectual and personal, but I would think that not examining an issue from all angles would be involved in all cases.  After all, it seems to me that to be absolutely objective about an issue you would have to provide no bias whatsoever... and that would include both assumptions of truth as well as knowledge and understanding of any given viewpoint.

I expect that most (if not all) of the people that come here already have some opinion (quite possibly a very strong one) about the existence of a god, and as such cannot be absolutely objective on the issue.  Recognizing that bias and fully appreciating its nature is both a matter of honesty and of awareness.  It's a particularly difficult challenge because of the fact that emotions affect our thought processes and that it's rather difficult (impossible?) to consider those possibilities which we've never thought of before.

A positive (+) claim that God (G) does not (-) exist?

heh.

 (G)+(-G)=0

Case dismissed. (and by the way, this is humor... mostly) 

I think the greater problem is in the concept of certainty that differs greatly between a laymen and scientific viewpoint. If a layman were to say "God does not exist" he is making an absolute statement, but if it were to be put in a scientific viewpoint the statement would translate into "There is not enough evidence to support the belief in a God". Becuase there is not enough supporting evidence a Scientific mind will go with the conclusion "God does not exist" for as long as that conclusion remains valid with future discoveries.

I think wise atheists (well the ones wise in my opinion) take things in the scientific mindset. We are not concerned with absolute truth, only truth it's self. We'll search and aknowledge what truth we can grasp for the time being, but as we find out more that truth will evolve. So "God does not exist" is a statment we find true for now, and if time and future discovery were to change that fact, so be it.

My explanation was a bit convoluted. I have created an image that I hope will illustrate my point more clearly. In the image, P stands for Proposition. I basically used two premises and introduced them in a different order so as to show the reversal of the positive or negative attribution. Here's the image:

Jesse's Blog (Latest: "Thomas Jefferson: Deist or Christian?&quot

Here's two arguments that I think defend the strong atheist position and the positive statement that God does not exist:

1. A supernatural God is an incoherent concept that is effectively meaningless. There can be no burden of proof when all you are asking is for a definition that signifies something. Until a theist gives you a coherent definition of God, you can take the strong atheist position with regards to their claim because, in effect, no claim has been made. "I'll admit that there may be a God when you can tell me what you mean by 'God.'"

2. Fundamentally, we can know nothing. We may be brains in vats. Therefore, asking for proof is asking for something that cannot be provided with regards to anything, even logical axioms. The first principles of reason are held because they are pragmatically useful and, inductively, seem unlikely to fail.

Using this model of knowledge, proofs are not certainties but instead statements that certain propositions are so unlikely to be wrong that the possibility need not be considered by reasonable people.

So now we have changed the meaning of absolute terms like "impossible," "proven" and "certain" to fall within the meanings that we actually use on a day-to-day basis. We know that, technically, it is not certain that the sun will come up tomorrow. But for pragmatic purposes, it makes no sense to consider this a genuine question. We know that the sun will come up with a similar level of certainty to which we know anything that we would take as absolutely certain. We would bet our lives and the lives of our children on that proposition with no fear. 

I would say that the existence of God as a real entity falls below the probability threshold of what we would consider possible. It isn't productive or correct to talk about the exceedingly minute chance that the theists are right in terms of "possible." If we use words like possible and certain and proof in the everyday sense which guides our lives, and apply them consistently to the question of God's existence, we should have no hesitation to say that it is impossible. Given a similar level of certainty in any other field of inquiry, we would not bother to split these hairs. As a strong atheist, I simply call for God to be exempted from the special pleading that has always protected him and forces us to acheive a ridiculously high standard of certainty before theists will concede the point. Not that they do, or ever will, anyway.

I know there is no God the same way I know the sun is coming up tomorrow. You can score technical points until you go blue in the face to the effect that I can know no such thing, but I can score those points right back to the effect that you can't know that I don't know. It is theists that have driven us to frame the discussion in these angels-on-the-heads-of-pins terms. Let's stop playing their game.  

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown

Crap a lot of people are having a hard time understanding the statement in the OP.

The OP is not suggesting that the burden of proof is not on the person that states "God exists" that was never stated nor is it implied in any shape way or form.

He is stating that people are twisting that argument incorrectly. If you state "God doesn't exist" then you are now making the positive statement. By making that statement you are claiming certainty, that there is proof, that such a thing does not exist. So when asked to prove it you actually do have the 'burden of proof'.

 I actually busted out my old notes from my critical thinking class for this.

          SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF

Description: The burden of proof is always on the person making the assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of "argumentum ad ignorantium," is a fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

So the OP is basically pointing out that we are abusing that argument and twisting the idea. If we are to argue that they must prove God exists, then we must also prove when we say we know for certain he doesn't exist and not simply shrug off their questions. Shouldn't this be something any of us can do almost at a whim at this point? 

"My advice to you is not to inquire why or whither, but just enjoy your ice cream while it's on your plate -- that's my philosophy." - - Thorton Wilder

I get it now, I was just on a drunken rampage the other night. The burden of proof does shift to the person making the claim, positive or negative. I circumvent this whole sinkhole by being more specific, the first thing I ask is "Which god"? Good point though, deathmunkygod, sorry for being a dick. :}

Crap a lot of people are having a hard time understanding the statement in the OP.

The OP is not suggesting that the burden of proof is not on the person that states "God exists" that was never stated nor is it implied in any shape way or form.

He is stating that people are twisting that argument incorrectly. If you state "God doesn't exist" then you are now making the positive statement. By making that statement you are claiming certainty, that there is proof, that such a thing does not exist. So when asked to prove it you actually do have the 'burden of proof'.

 I actually busted out my old notes from my critical thinking class for this.

          SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF

Description: The burden of proof is always on the person making the assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of "argumentum ad ignorantium," is a fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.

 

So the OP is basically pointing out that we are abusing that argument and twisting the idea. If we are to argue that they must prove God exists, then we must also prove when we say we know for certain he doesn't exist and not simply shrug off their questions. Shouldn't this be something any of us can do almost at a whim at this point? 

 

Thank you, thank you, thank you.  Strong atheism is "shifting the burden of proof".  At least that's the way I view it.  Strong atheism is a positive claim, therefore the burden of proof applies.  Weak atheism is a negative or neutral claim, therefore the burden of proof does not apply.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence --Christopher Hitchens

Science. It works, bitches.

1. A supernatural God is an incoherent concept that is effectively meaningless. There can be no burden of proof when all you are asking is for a definition that signifies something. Until a theist gives you a coherent definition of God, you can take the strong atheist position with regards to their claim because, in effect, no claim has been made. "I'll admit that there may be a God when you can tell me what you mean by 'God.'"

 

I think we've been over this.  A supernatural god maybe a logically incoherent concept but it is not in general incoherent.  Remember to discount the value of intuition in understanding things is to render all that we know meaningless.  Everything we know is based on an intuitive understanding of something at its foundation.  Thus it does not make god a meaningless concept to recognize that we don't agree on how we understand him, it just makes a supernatural god a logically incoherent concept and makes it impossible then to prove or disprove whether or not a god exists.  At least for now.

I have to say thank you Watcher, QuasarX, Distracted and even lazuli13 for getting the purpose of the OP, I really appreciate it.  I was starting to worry for a while there.

I know I said I was done... but I agree with you on the first part of your OP about the burden of proof and positive statements, so I'd like to throw in a couple more cents.

This issue makes it very important when entering into theological discussions with persons. If someone asks why you don't believe, you can't start into "god can't be x and y, etc, etc, logic, blah, blah" because you haven't established that the person is even claiming x and y about their god. It seems like every theist has a slightly different definition/image of god so make sure to establish what that is before continuing.

Sadly, as it's been said, people confuse the statements "I have no belief in gods" and "I believe there is no god", so I've been wondering what to say when people ask "what religion are you?" (thankfully, it's generally a non-work-safe topic, so I don't think it'll come up any time soon.) Do you say "agnostic" (which many interpret as "please convert me and save my soul" )? "Skeptic" (probably most confusing)? "Agnostic atheist" then spend upwards of an hour explaining what you mean by that? (Sorry if I'm derailing the thread, feel free to issue a smackdown, DMG.)

-Triften

EDIT: I hate when random smileys appear due to " and ) being too close to each other... 

I think we've been over this. A supernatural god maybe a logically incoherent concept but it is not in general incoherent. Remember to discount the value of intuition in understanding things is to render all that we know meaningless. Everything we know is based on an intuitive understanding of something at its foundation. Thus it does not make god a meaningless concept to recognize that we don't agree on how we understand him, it just makes a supernatural god a logically incoherent concept and makes it impossible then to prove or disprove whether or not a god exists. At least for now.

 

I don't see how logical and empirical first principles are based on intuition at all. Without them we are unable to function and die. What is intuitive about that?

I might agree with you that God could exist as a logically incoherent entity if we had some other basis for holding a belief in him. For instance, if someone had seen him. However this has never happened, as far as the evidence shows. The only support for the existence of God is the concept that people hold in their heads but, since that concept is incoherent, that makes God incoherent since he has never been shown to have any ontology apart from this concept. 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown

So the OP is basically pointing out that we are abusing that argument and twisting the idea. If we are to argue that they must prove God exists, then we must also prove when we say we know for certain he doesn't exist and not simply shrug off their questions. Shouldn't this be something any of us can do almost at a whim at this point?

 

Exactly. I think we do know that God does not exist, to the extent that we know anything. 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown

I know I said I was done... but I agree with you on the first part of your OP about the burden of proof and positive statements, so I'd like to throw in a couple more cents.

This issue makes it very important when entering into theological discussions with persons. If someone asks why you don't believe, you can't start into "god can't be x and y, etc, etc, logic, blah, blah" because you haven't established that the person is even claiming x and y about their god. It seems like every theist has a slightly different definition/image of god so make sure to establish what that is before continuing.

Sadly, as it's been said, people confuse the statements "I have no belief in gods" and "I believe there is no god", so I've been wondering what to say when people ask "what religion are you?" (thankfully, it's generally a non-work-safe topic, so I don't think it'll come up any time soon.) Do you say "agnostic" (which many interpret as "please convert me and save my soul" )? "Skeptic" (probably most confusing)? "Agnostic atheist" then spend upwards of an hour explaining what you mean by that? (Sorry if I'm derailing the thread, feel free to issue a smackdown, DMG.)

-Triften

 

Well personally I spend a lot of time in christian chatrooms debating evolution vs intelligent design and often they bring subjects like cosmology into it.  But I get asked that a lot, and I just answer that I don't "believe in" anything, I just don't assume anything that I can't definitively prove one way or the other.  I welcome them to supply adequate proof of their god, but as expected they never do, as the proposition is inherently unproveable.  At least based on what we currently know.

And the post is kewl, triften, I think it's relevant even if it's not directly relevant to the OP.  It's still an important question.

I don't see how logical and empirical first principles are based on intuition at all. Without them we are unable to function and die. What is intuitive about that?

I might agree with you that God could exist as a logically incoherent entity if we had some other basis for holding a belief in him. For instance, if someone had seen him. However this has never happened, as far as the evidence shows. The only support for the existence of God is the concept that people hold in their heads but, since that concept is incoherent, that makes God incoherent since he has never been shown to have any ontology apart from this concept.

Of course you don't, why am I not surprised.  Ok how about a few questions then.  How do you know logic is the right way to reason about reality?  What is a point in euclidean geometry in which space is continuous, feel free to formally prove that such a concept can exist in reality?  How does defining a line as a continuous collection of points work across continuous space?  Think Zeno's paradox...What exactly is a number, feel free to rigorously prove that concept as well?  How do you know that the comutative property of addition always holds?

Here are some other good questions.  Can science answer them?  What is the meaning of life?  What is our purpose in life?

Also what, I wonder, prompted copernicus to try to eliminate the epicycles from a planetary model that was reasonably accurate, and indeed more accurate than his own subsequent model, at predicting the motions of the planets?  Copernicus certainly didn't know he was right, and after he devised his model he was compelled to concede that it didn't work, and ptolemy's model was better.  Copernicus was of course guided by intuition as was Euclid.  Copernicus didn't like the complexity of the ptolemaic model and intuitively recognized that a better model could be derived which functioned more simply by placing the sun at the center of the universe.  Copernicus' model failed only because he didn't recognize that he should also change the shapes of the orbits from circles to elipses.  Of course Keppler didn't know before he proved it that doing so would improve the model.  But he intuitively understood that it might.  If we eliminate intuition then upon what shall we base all new scientific discoveries?  If we don't allow people to follow their intuition when defining concepts or working out new models then we put an end to innovation, since we can't know anything until we prove it.

Of course I never said that intuition was knowledge itself, but intuition is the basis of all of our knowledge.  Past, present and future.  There's no reason for us to think that the search for a quantum theory of gravity is necessarily right, the ONLY reason we're looking is because it seems to make sense intuitively.  The more we look into it the more we are justified.

But what is gravity?  It is recognized as distortions in spacetime, it is hypothesized that it is caused by a particle known as the graviton, but does the graviton exist?  Intuitively we think so, but we have no proof.  Luckily we know how to falsify it we just don't have the technology.

and for my final question....why would scientists take the time to research anything they didn't already know if they didn't intuitively believe that such research would justify the time?

Also you're ignoring that people's basis for belief in god is experience.  They are told that experiences they can't explain are caused by god and we all have such experiences in our lives.  Some of us are less quick to jump to a conclusion that, while it amounts to nothing more than an argument from ignorance, may still be correct.

Remember just because we can't prove something logically doesn't mean it can't exist.  Also absence of proof is not proof of absence.  Just because as far as we know something is never justified in an objective manner doesn't mean that thing is never justfied.  The experience of the individual is sufficient for that individual to decide he what he will believe, even if it is not sufficient for you, feel free to point that out to them, I know I do, frequently, often without being asked.

Also god has many ontologies, he just has no logically coherent ontology.  Thus he can't be discounted out of hand in any given discussion, but you can determine what an individual's idea or conception of god is and work from that if you like.  Feel free to show how that person's individual conception is incoherent.  Assuming, of course, that you can.  To give a little advice I would recommend that you not waste your time with that argument as even a reasonable person won't buy it, instead focus on pointing out that he has no objective justification for his belief.  It may not be wrong belief, but he can't honestly say he knows that god exists.  If his foundation of belief inevitably falls back on faith, you can tell him that faith is no justification at all.  What belief cannot possibly be justified by faith?  There is none.  Anything that justifies absolutely everything, justifies absolutely nothing.

Belief with justification is necessary for anyone to claim knowledge.

In essence I agree with this statement.  But I would word it slightly differently.  I would say that from what we do no there is no reason to assume that a god exists, and insufficient reason to adjust my behavior in such a way as to appease any given god like believing just for the sake of not being punished just in case in true pascal's wager fashion.  I would say that I effectively don't believe in god because while I don't assume a god doesn't exist, it's my lack of assumption that he does exist that seems to rule my thought processes.

 

I don’t think that many people on this website are strong atheists who claim that god doesn’t exist and that they don’t need to offer any evidence to validate their claim. And i’ve rarely seen anyone make the argument "you cannot prove that god exists, so that proves it does not." I think that you’re interpreting it as such.

I agree that if someone makes a knowledge claim they have to support it. But I don’t agree that that is what is happening on this website and that’s why I think this conversation is not really productive. I also think you are attacking people who generally agree with you for not expressing their assumption in what you consider to be the correct way, who don’t claim to have proof, and who if asked would freely admit that they don’t.   

I don’t think that many people on this website are strong atheists who claim that god doesn’t exist and that they don’t need to offer any evidence to validate their claim. And i’ve rarely seen anyone make the argument "you cannot prove that god exists, so that proves it does not." I think that you’re interpreting it as such.

When people on this site say that there is no god they’re usually talking about a reasonable assumption. If someone suggests that something exists outside of what is known to exist then it’s reasonable to assume that it doesn’t when they offer no evidence or cogent arguments to support their claim.

I agree that if someone makes a knowledge claim they have to support it. But I don’t agree that that is what is happening on this website and that’s why I think this conversation is not really productive. I also think you are attacking people who generally agree with you for not expressing their assumption in what you consider to be the correct way, who don’t claim to have proof, and who if asked would freely admit that they don’t.

 

From my short time here I haven't seen the argument come up either. It's still important to understand the difference in the argument, it's subtle and it's easy to miss, even if it's infrequent. 

"My advice to you is not to inquire why or whither, but just enjoy your ice cream while it's on your plate -- that's my philosophy." - - Thorton Wilder

Of course you don't, why am I not surprised. Ok how about a few questions then. How do you know logic is the right way to reason about reality?

I don't. All I know is that it works. And since that is the strongest possible claim to knowledge, I can say with perfect certainty that logic is the correct way to reason about reality.

What is a point in euclidean geometry in which space is continuous, feel free to formally prove that such a concept can exist in reality? How does defining a line as a continuous collection of points work across continuous space? Think Zeno's paradox...What exactly is a number, feel free to rigorously prove that concept as well? How do you know that the comutative property of addition always holds?

All pointing to the fact that we are able to create word games that do not have solutions. Hooray for us. This only reinforces my point that there are necessary limits on human knowledge and we should not pretend to be able to see beyond those limits.

Here are some other good questions. Can science answer them? What is the meaning of life? What is our purpose in life?

Whatever the answer to those questions is, it is in our heads and of concern only to us. The universe betrays no sign of having the slightest interest in these questions.

Also what, I wonder, prompted copernicus to try to eliminate the epicycles from a planetary model that was reasonably accurate, and indeed more accurate than his own subsequent model, at predicting the motions of the planets? Copernicus certainly didn't know he was right, and after he devised his model he was compelled to concede that it didn't work, and ptolemy's model was better. Copernicus was of course guided by intuition as was Euclid. Copernicus didn't like the complexity of the ptolemaic model and intuitively recognized that a better model could be derived which functioned more simply by placing the sun at the center of the universe. Copernicus' model failed only because he didn't recognize that he should also change the shapes of the orbits from circles to elipses. Of course Keppler didn't know before he proved it that doing so would improve the model. But he intuitively understood that it might. If we eliminate intuition then upon what shall we base all new scientific discoveries? If we don't allow people to follow their intuition when defining concepts or working out new models then we put an end to innovation, since we can't know anything until we prove it.

I think people should follow their intuition around like obediant little lapdogs all day long. But it ain't knowledge until it can be justified on rational grounds, without reference to intuition. Or are you forgetting the rigour with which each of the above scientists adhered to the scientific method and refused to make his conclusions public until they could pass every rational test?

Of course I never said that intuition was knowledge itself, but intuition is the basis of all of our knowledge. Past, present and future. There's no reason for us to think that the search for a quantum theory of gravity is necessarily right, the ONLY reason we're looking is because it seems to make sense intuitively. The more we look into it the more we are justified.

You haven't shown this and you are still as wrong as before. The basis of knowledge is the ability of any axiom to survive and propagate the survival of the axiom holder. There are very good, very rational reasons to think that there must be some theory that reconciles gravity and quantum mechanics, namely, that we see both these things operating in the universe and there is only one universe. The fact that our suspicion is backed by intuition (which it isn't for everyone, BTW) is quite beside the point. 

But what is gravity? It is recognized as distortions in spacetime, it is hypothesized that it is caused by a particle known as the graviton, but does the graviton exist? Intuitively we think so, but we have no proof. Luckily we know how to falsify it we just don't have the technology.

We don't base our suspicion that there are gravitons on intuition, we base it on theories that are backed up by math that can explain certain observed phenomenon if we assume the presence of gravitons. This is pure reason, pure deduction. The only thing our intuition tells us is how strongly we feel that there are gravitons or not. No scientist considers their intuition to contribute to the evidence in any way.

and for my final question....why would scientists take the time to research anything they didn't already know if they didn't intuitively believe that such research would justify the time?

There is such a thing as theorizing and speculation that can create models that logically follow from available evidence, but have a lower probability of being correct because of how far they have deviated from the hard data. These are simply not supported or created by intuition. They come from valid extrapolation forward from a given state. If I see a number series that goes 1,2,3,4,5 is it "intuition" when I predict that the series will continue 6,7,8,9,10? No, it is induction, which perfectly valid, logically.

Also you're ignoring that people's basis for belief in god is experience. They are told that experiences they can't explain are caused by god and we all have such experiences in our lives. Some of us are less quick to jump to a conclusion that, while it amounts to nothing more than an argument from ignorance, may still be correct.

You really are having trouble grasping this point that there is a difference between personal opinion and commonly held knowledge. If a person sees Jesus at the foot of their bed, I immediately defer to their right to feel that they know Jesus exists. They have direct, empirical evidence. But since they cannot share that evidence with anyone I contest their right to make the statement "Jesus exists" as a piece of knowledge that applies to everyone. That goes double for unexplained phenomena, which may simply be unexplained because the individual lacks the wit to think of an explanation.

Remember just because we can't prove something logically doesn't mean it can't exist.

The question is not CAN it exist, it is DOES it exist? If it can't be justified logically, and there is no other evidence for its existance, it doesn't exist. Any other position is intellecutally dishonest since, in our daily lives, we do not act as if imaginary things really exist.

Also absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Sure, if you're talking about something that can be reasonably expected to exist.

Just because as far as we know something is never justified in an objective manner doesn't mean that thing is never justfied. The experience of the individual is sufficient for that individual to decide he what he will believe, even if it is not sufficient for you, feel free to point that out to them, I know I do, frequently, often without being asked.

I really don't care what individuals believe. I care about what they say I should believe. And I deny their right to tell me I should admit even the possibility that something exists for which they cannot offer the slightest rational justification.

Also god has many ontologies, he just has no logically coherent ontology. Thus he can't be discounted out of hand in any given discussion, but you can determine what an individual's idea or conception of god is and work from that if you like.

Why would I pretend to think that all the fairy tales I have ever heard are possibly true just because the topic at hand is God? That isn't how people operate. There is a boundary between fantasy and reality. I will accept the premise that God could exist when I am given empirical or logical evidence of it and not before. So far, no one has passed the test.

Feel free to show how that person's individual conception is incoherent. Assuming, of course, that you can.

Never had a problem with that with any theist I've ever met.

To give a little advice I would recommend that you not waste your time with that argument as even a reasonable person won't buy it,

You mean, of course, that you won't buy it. But you are wrong.

instead focus on pointing out that he has no objective justification for his belief.

Which is all I'm talking about anyway.

It may not be wrong belief,

It is if he's claiming objective truth with no objective justification. 

but he can't honestly say he knows that god exists. If his foundation of belief inevitably falls back on faith, you can tell him that faith is no justification at all. What belief cannot possibly be justified by faith? There is none. Anything that justifies absolutely everything, justifies absolutely nothing.

Belief with justification is necessary for anyone to claim knowledge.

 

Bravo. And that justification cannot come from intuition or faith, but reason only. 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown

I don't. All I know is that it works. And since that is the strongest possible claim to knowledge, I can say with perfect certainty that logic is the correct way to reason about reality.

 

Yes you can, but the only way anyone knows this is intuitively.  You can't rigorously prove it can you?  If you could you'd be famous.

 

All pointing to the fact that we are able to create word games that do not have solutions. Hooray for us. This only reinforces my point that there are necessary limits on human knowledge and we should not pretend to be able to see beyond those limits.

 

I was referring to euclid's axioms of geometry, his geometry is defined over continuous space with no coordinate system.  It was because of zeno's paradox that greek geometers thought it was logically atrocious to speak of anything moving and if one tried to do so in a proof it would automatically be invalidated.  Yet we know from experience that things move.  But Euclid's axioms were not, are not, and possibly never will be proveable.  In a geometry with coordinate systems it becomes a little easier to give a definition of a point that seems justifiable but still at its foundation it is an intuitive concept.  I just didn't want to have to work that hard to get at what's intuitive, I appologize.  I also didn't think I should have to when there was a system tailor made...why reinvent the wheel?  The accusation of playing word games might be valid if I were making up my own system with them, but all I was doing with them was limiting the scope to an already existing system.  A system whose foundation was entirely intuitive.

 

Whatever the answer to those questions is, it is in our heads and of concern only to us. The universe betrays no sign of having the slightest interest in these questions.

Right, because science can't answer all questions.  These questions are not of the kind which science can answer, science can only answer the questions that we can know the answer to.  If there's no way to logically prove something through deduction or induction then science can't answer it.  Thus we give these questions our own answers based on our own experience and our interpretations of those experiences.

I think people should follow their intuition around like obediant little lapdogs all day long. But it ain't knowledge until it can be justified on rational grounds, without reference to intuition. Or are you forgetting the rigour with which each of the above scientists adhered to the scientific method and refused to make his conclusions public until they could pass every rational test?

 

You're missing the point again entirely.  Scientists and rational people trying to understand something new have to intuitively grasp the concept before they can ever hope to rigorously prove it.  Ever tried proving something when you had no understanding of what you were trying to prove?  Have you ever seen the proof of the pythagorean theorem?  It's very interesting because it required that the person proving it have a very good intuitive understanding of what he was proving.  So good, in fact, that he didn't need to approach the proof directly, but he circled around it and that was the only way to make it possible.  Actually there are a lot of proofs apparently, and many of them are quite circuitous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem#Proofs

In short, intuition is no substitute for rigour, but in a rational or scientific mind intuition leads to rigour.

 

You haven't shown this and you are still as wrong as before. The basis of knowledge is the ability of any axiom to survive and propagate the survival of the axiom holder. There are very good, very rational reasons to think that there must be some theory that reconciles gravity and quantum mechanics, namely, that we see both these things operating in the universe and there is only one universe. The fact that our suspicion is backed by intuition (which it isn't for everyone, BTW) is quite beside the point. 

 

Axioms are a priori propositions which are accepted intuitively and verified a posteriori.  Axioms cannot be proven and they are usually not even proposed if they do not intuitively seem to correspond to reality.  Axioms which are proposed and are not seen as intuitive by enough people are rejected because it becomes clear that they don't correspond well to reality, maybe just someone's misperceptions of reality, but not reality as it is understood by the majority of people.  Of course the majority of people are not always right in their perceptions of reality.  The basis of knowledge has little to do with axioms, though.  Knowledge is defined most basically as true belief with justification.  However belief with justification is necessary but often insufficient for anyone to claim knowledge as shown by Gettier, because a person may hold a false belief with justification.  The problem comes down to we can't always know everything about a given problem.  And we definitely do not know everything about the universe.

Axioms are, however, a form of knowledge.  Axioms are known as a priori knowledge.  Experience is another form of knowledge.  That's a posteriori knowledge.  Also our suspicion is not only backed by intuition, it was driven by intuition in the first place.  It's not based on any really good reasons in reality, it's based on scientists liked the way electricity and magnetism were combined into a single force completely described by 4 equations.  It was simple, it was elegant, it was everything we want to believe the universe is.  The search for grand unification started from that.  After that it was justified by the combination of electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force into the electroweak force.  So intuition alone sparked the search for unification of forces and it only subsequently found justification in the unification of some of the forces.  I'm still not sure but I think it's at least possible that the electroweak force has been unified with the strong nuclear force.  I actually haven't seen anything which states this outright.  I believe that this is still an active problem in physics with some good prospects.  But the search for grand unification and a quantum theory of gravity are entirely prompted by an intuitive belief that such a search will be justified.

There is such a thing as theorizing and speculation that can create models that logically follow from available evidence, but have a lower probability of being correct because of how far they have deviated from the hard data. These are simply not supported or created by intuition. They come from valid extrapolation forward from a given state. If I see a number series that goes 1,2,3,4,5 is it "intuition" when I predict that the series will continue 6,7,8,9,10? No, it is induction, which perfectly valid, logically.

 

Wow, that was the best example you could come up with?  A logical series?  That would hardly count as new information about the world.  What novel scientific theory in history was based on purely deductive logic?  Inductive logic is intuitive logic.  It's validity is debated within logic.  Inductive arguments are arguments whose conclusions appear to be justified by the conclusion but are by their nature not as certain as deductive arguments.  In inductive reasoning one is compelled to make intuitive leaps.  Inductive reasoning works in scientific reasoning hand in hand with falsifiability.  This is because inductive reasoning can never be certain unless we have a way of falsifying it.  That's why falsification is so important in science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

Also when you predict the number series will continue the way that it does it's deduction.  Since you're just deducing the accepted counting series, unless you have reason to believe someone redefined the numbers for that particular series...

You really are having trouble grasping this point that there is a difference between personal opinion and commonly held knowledge. If a person sees Jesus at the foot of their bed, I immediately defer to their right to feel that they know Jesus exists. They have direct, empirical evidence. But since they cannot share that evidence with anyone I contest their right to make the statement "Jesus exists" as a piece of knowledge that applies to everyone. That goes double for unexplained phenomena, which may simply be unexplained because the individual lacks the wit to think of an explanation.

 

Of course there's a difference between opinion and knowledge.  Opinions may or may not be subjective and they may or may not be justified, however they also may or may not be true.  A person can hold a true informed opinion, and upon finding out that their opinion were true that person could then rightfully claim that they knew.  But a person who holds a true opinion with no justification cannot, since they did not hold that true belief with justification.  And all people who held a false opinion obviously cannot claim they knew anything with or without justification.  But opinions only exist so long as something remains largely unproven, or unproveable.  The person in your example would hold a belief in jesus with justification, that would be his opinion mainly because we can't know for sure that his justified belief is true.  If we ever found a way to falsify the existence of jesus we may find that that person did indeed know that jesus existed because he now held what we all recognize as a justified true belief.  On the other hand we would be as likely or possibly more likely to find that jesus does not exist and that that persons belief was justified but false, he misinterpreted the data, or did not have complete data.  Either he was halucinating, or he was dreaming and he only thought he was awake.

As for unexplained phenomena, that may be, but as no one who might have been able to explain the phenomena also experienced it it would be an assumption of perfect knowledge to conclude that that is the only possible explanation.  Maybe if it had been you who experienced the hypothetical unexplained phenomena it would also defy explanation from you.  Maybe it would defy explanation from absolutely anyone, and maybe, in reality, there would be no natural explanation.

The question is not CAN it exist, it is DOES it exist? If it can't be justified logically, and there is no other evidence for its existance, it doesn't exist. Any other position is intellecutally dishonest since, in our daily lives, we do not act as if imaginary things really exist.

 

That's the question for theists and strong atheists.  For me the question is only can it exist.  As long as it is possible I will not assume that it doesn't exist, but also just because something can exist does not mean that that thing necessarily does, so I equally will not assume that it does.  Just because something cannot be justified logically and we have no evidence for it does not necessarily mean that that something does not exist.  I've never seen anyone prove that if we cannot understand something, or cannot prove something, then that something must necessarily be false.  That would require perfect information which we, as humans, do not have.

Sure, if you're talking about something that can be reasonably expected to exist.

 

This is true in general.  Or I should paraphrase, a reasonable reason to expect that something might exist would be?  How about a reasonable freason to conclude that something does not exist?  Are you trying to suggest that absence of proof is a reasonable reason to conclude that something does not exist?  But you just agreed that what I said was true if we were talking about something we might reasonably expect to exist.  So how do we determine that we can reasonably expect something to exist that we cannot prove?  Because if there's no absence of proof, then once again your agreement makes no sense...

I really don't care what individuals believe. I care about what they say I should believe. And I deny their right to tell me I should admit even the possibility that something exists for which they cannot offer the slightest rational justification.

 

So you know everything then?  I don't understand.  You can't admit the possibility of something that exists on the basis of your own humanity, then?  Because they may not be able to rationally justify that god exists, but you haven't so far been able to rationally justify your assertion that god doesn't exist.  Why not admit the possibility based on your own human fallibility?  That's the only reason why I admit the possibility.

 

Why would I pretend to think that all the fairy tales I have ever heard are possibly true just because the topic at hand is God? That isn't how people operate. There is a boundary between fantasy and reality. I will accept the premise that God could exist when I am given empirical or logical evidence of it and not before. So far, no one has passed the test.

 

Not all fairy tales concern god.  Many fairy tales were written as fiction and so there was never any claim that the creatures contained within were real, or the content of the stories were real.  The same cannot be said for urban legends which may or may not be true, but many of them, at least, we can falsify, and myths and religions.  Myths and religions may, however, have some basis in truth.  There's no reason to accept the entire stories as literally true, many of the aspects can also be falsified by history and science, like much of the bible.  However a religion's core claims, the aspects directly concerning the religion's god cannot be falsified.  I also don't see why the line between fantasy and reality is relevant.  Many theists are capable of living in reality quite well.  And many scientists are themselves theists, it in no way prevents them from doing their jobs.

So then I'm curious what your rational justification is for your assumption that god does not exist?  If you have none then what is your justification?  Why do you believe what you cannot rationally justify?  By the way I'm not dodging the burden of proof here, but you asked for empirical evidence that god exists, I obviously can't give that.  And I've already pointed out that to assume that god does not exist requires a perfect knowledge of everything, which we do not have.  So either you have some rational justification to conclude that god doesn't exist, or you're basing your conclusion on your earlier completely invalid reasoning that if we cannot prove something logically and there is no evidence then that thing does not exist.  I was seriously unaware that the universe cared about what we think so much that it won't allow something to exist if we can't know about it.  So I'm basically just curious to know if you have a rational justification for your assumption that god does not exist that isn't one of your previous invalid justifications.

Never had a problem with that with any theist I've ever met.

 

Is that because you really never had a problem with it, or is that because you believed you didn't have a problem.  How many theists have you deconverted?  How many different conceptions of god have you confronted?  What were they and how did you show them to be incoherent?  Remember that you're not the only person in any given debate.  How well did you consider th thoughts which motivated the other side's responses?  How convinced was the other side that you had rendered his god concept incoherent?  Because if the other side wasn't convinced then I'd say you did have a problem and you just didn't acknowledge it.  That's not the same thing as not having a problem.

 

You mean, of course, that you won't buy it. But you are wrong.

 

No I mean that most god concepts are actually quite coherent to the person holding it, so any attempt to show that person that the concept is incoherent will just destroy your own credibility, as it will become immediately clear that you're not arguing an objective position.  Two subjective positions arguing against each other will never result in either side giving way.  Esspecially when it's clear to both sides that the other side is not being objective.

Which is all I'm talking about anyway.

 

No you're taking it a step too far.  I'm talking about staying within the realm of what we can objectively prove as well as we can objectively prove anything.

It is if he's claiming objective truth with no objective justification. 

 

At best you can point out that he's wrong to claim he is being objective.  Truth doesn't depend on our ability to prove it.  Remember that a person can hold a true belief without a rational or objective justification, they just can't claim that the belief was knowledge.  But just because they can't rationally justify their belief doesn't mean they can't also be right.  It just means it's dishonest for them to claim that they know.

Bravo. And that justification cannot come from intuition or faith, but reason only.

 

Actually a priori knowledge is justified by intuition.  Justification can't come from faith because faith justifies absolutely any belief and anything that justifies everything justifies nothing.  Reason and experience are the two acceptable methods of justification in epistemology.  A priori knowledge which is intuitively understood to be true but cannot be rationally proven, such as Euclid's axioms.  Then a posteriori truth such as "Protons are made out of quarks", a statement which is true and derived from experience.

But remember just because someone beliefs something without valid justification doesn't mean what they believe is automatically false.  And just because someone believes something with justification, doesn't mean that belief is automatically true.

Gauche wrote:

I don’t think that many people on this website are strong atheists who claim that god doesn’t exist and that they don’t need to offer any evidence to validate their claim. And i’ve rarely seen anyone make the argument "you cannot prove that god exists, so that proves it does not." I think that you’re interpreting it as such.

When people on this site say that there is no god they’re usually talking about a reasonable assumption. If someone suggests that something exists outside of what is known to exist then it’s reasonable to assume that it doesn’t when they offer no evidence or cogent arguments to support their claim.

I agree that if someone makes a knowledge claim they have to support it. But I don’t agree that that is what is happening on this website and that’s why I think this conversation is not really productive. I also think you are attacking people who generally agree with you for not expressing their assumption in what you consider to be the correct way, who don’t claim to have proof, and who if asked would freely admit that they don’t.

 

 

 

 

From my short time here I haven't seen the argument come up either. It's still important to understand the difference in the argument, it's subtle and it's easy to miss, even if it's infrequent. 

Actually I'll clarify again as my previous clarification is buried in one of my other many posts to this thread.  It wasn't that claim actually that prompted this thread.  I just used that claim as my example.  I just noticed that some of the atheists on this site were making assertions that were not backed up by proof and when I or someone else would ask them to prove it they would shift the burden of proof onto us to prove the opposite claim.

Also as an amusing little afterthought, Tilberian in the post immediately after yours makes almost exactly that argument.

I think the greater problem is in the concept of certainty that differs greatly between a laymen and scientific viewpoint. If a layman were to say "God does not exist" he is making an absolute statement, but if it were to be put in a scientific viewpoint the statement would translate into "There is not enough evidence to support the belief in a God". Becuase there is not enough supporting evidence a Scientific mind will go with the conclusion "God does not exist" for as long as that conclusion remains valid with future discoveries.

I think wise atheists (well the ones wise in my opinion) take things in the scientific mindset. We are not concerned with absolute truth, only truth it's self. We'll search and aknowledge what truth we can grasp for the time being, but as we find out more that truth will evolve. So "God does not exist" is a statment we find true for now, and if time and future discovery were to change that fact, so be it.

Actually the scientific mindset only states that "god is unfalsifiable".  Because of that science realizes that science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of god so science itself has no opinion.  This is why theists can be scientists, because science does not tell anyone that god doesn't exist even based on what we know.

Based on the information that we actually have the only thing we can know for certain about the existence or nonexistence of god is that we don't know.

I suppose the word positive was too ambiguous, if you read closely in many of my other comments you'd see that I was using the word as synonymous with certain.  Basically not positive vs negative but positive vs tentative.

I suppose the word positive was too ambiguous, if you read closely in many of my other comments you'd see that I was using the word as synonymous with certain. Basically not positive vs negative but positive vs tentative.

 

Thanks for clarifying that.

I was about to point out this very point, that you were using the term 'positive' in the informal sense of a strongly expressed argument, rather than in the more philosophical/logical sense of a statement asserting the truth of some proposition, where denying the truth of some proposition would be classed as a 'negative' assertion. It is in this latter sense rather than in the sense of the degree of certainty being expressed, that 'burden of proof' arguments are usually made.

In practical terms, we normally place the burden of proof on the person trying to assert the truth of proposition which has prima facie the least likelihood.

In more formal arguments, it really should be limited to propositions asserting the existence of some actual entity or process or phenomena which cannot be directly and unambiguously observed.

Once you are into propositions about other propositions, such as a claim that another claim is false, it becomes problematic. If I claim that your claim about the existence of God is false, it is ultimately futile to make assertions that because you are the one making a claim, the burden of proof lies with you. This long thread seems to have shown just how unresolvable this interpretation of 'burden of proof' is.

We really need to restrict it to the straightforward case of a claim that some identifiable entity or object exists, or closely related types of claims. Russell's teapot is a classic example of this. If someone proposes that something exists, but provides no positive evidence actually pointing to the existence of this entity or object, then there is a problem. Even if we have no practical way of disproving the proposition, and it seems contrary to normal experience, or 'intuitively' improbable, if you like, then it is entirely reasonable to treat it as not likely enough to concern ourselves with.

IOW this is where the burden of proof should be placed - on the person claiming the positive existence of the thing, regardless of how they phrase it. Until they produce evidence pointing specifically to some particular God concept, ie not just a gap in 'natural' explanations, we have nothing to disprove or argue against.

Since there are a literally infinite number of things which, to the best of our current knowledge, could exist, and are not currently or in the foreseeable future disprovable, the idea that we are somehow obliged to keep any non-disprovable assertion in mind is absurd.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

The argument example in the OP is indeed invalid, but I've never seen it used. Of the few strong atheists I've seen explain their position here, it's never come down to shifting the burden of proof. It's generally properties attributed to a specific deity being contradictory, lack of ontological status, etc. The less description there is given to a god, the harder it is to refute the claim; but then, by that time a god is indistinguishable from nature, and there's nothing left to refute.

"The "beyond" -- why a beyond, if not as a means for besmirching this world?"
Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols
"Anxiety is freedom's actuality as the possibility of possibility."
Søren Kierkegaard

While i understand the original post, and the problem the threadstarter states (and partially agree with it) i dont see the relevance of it.

I will clearify why. 

First of all there are barely strong Atheists out there that apply this kind of absolute certainity.

Second, they mostly use their strong "i know god doesnt exist" to a positive claim about a god already made. I.E. they dont use it on all things imaginable. They dont go around and scream out the things they dont believe in but are possible.

They focus mostly on the statement of a god thats existance they think is false and contradictory. 

Their statement is probably and mostly used to "tick" the one claiming god exists off. Of course one could argue if this is a nice thing to do or not but thats irrelevant here.

 And finally third, the existance of a concept (aka everything that we can think off) is not proof for the existance of said concept in nature. I.E. the idea of a squared circle exists, that doesnt mean a squared circle exists. I think this is called the identity of an object which can not be proof for the object itself.

Ill adress here the point you tried to make with geometry and mathematics, where some concepts seem to be impossible in real life. Yes i agree, i cant prove the existance of a infinite 1 dimensional line (in nature). yet nobody ever claimed such a thing exists in reality, it is merely a concept that is used to describe certain things.

Now, i fully accept that the concept of god is real. 

What i dont accept is that the concept has a representation in the "limited world", also calling up different universes to rationalize the concept doesnt do the trick.

As a last thing on the supernatural:

Everything that exists is natural. The supernatural does not exists since it would be outside of existance, hence be nonexistant.

Now to claim that you know for sure that god (supernatural god) does not exists, would be perfectly adequate in this view of mine.

EDIT

i fully agree with magilium. so the statement in the OP is valid IF you are talking about ANY god (therefore ANY concept) which atheists dont. Atheists focus on the claim of "god" proposed by a religion.

Since that concept "god" (i think everyone can agree with that) is well defined and falacious, we actually can say that the object described is nonexistant.

A few points about mathematical concepts.

A 'square circle' is non-existent by definition, so is not in the same category of truth status as assertions about reality, such as the existence or non-existence of actual entities or objects. Pretty much every time I see it referred to in these discussions, it really doesn't make any point.

Regarding geometric points and lines, these are quite valid concepts in mathematics, and there are an infinite number of points in a line. There is a whole area of maths addressing the concept of infinity, in fact a series of different 'trans-finite' numbers, with specific definitions.

Zeno's paradox has been fully addressed by areas of math which deal with the summation of infinite series of numbers. The error which led to the 'paradox' was the intuitive assumption that the sum of an infinite set of numbers 'must' be infinite, IOW Zeno's paradox is a good example of how intuition can lead us to make incorrect conclusions.

So the Greeks difficulties were just that they had not developed the additional tools and concepts in math to handle these 'problems'.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

Tilberian wrote:

I don't. All I know is that it works. And since that is the strongest possible claim to knowledge, I can say with perfect certainty that logic is the correct way to reason about reality.

 

 

Yes you can, but the only way anyone knows this is intuitively. You can't rigorously prove it can you? If you could you'd be famous.

 Yes, I can rigorous prove it. If you stop using first principles of logic for a week, you will be dead at the end of it. I win.

I was referring to euclid's axioms of geometry, his geometry is defined over continuous space with no coordinate system. It was because of zeno's paradox that greek geometers thought it was logically atrocious to speak of anything moving and if one tried to do so in a proof it would automatically be invalidated. Yet we know from experience that things move. But Euclid's axioms were not, are not, and possibly never will be proveable. In a geometry with coordinate systems it becomes a little easier to give a definition of a point that seems justifiable but still at its foundation it is an intuitive concept. I just didn't want to have to work that hard to get at what's intuitive, I appologize. I also didn't think I should have to when there was a system tailor made...why reinvent the wheel? The accusation of playing word games might be valid if I were making up my own system with them, but all I was doing with them was limiting the scope to an already existing system. A system whose foundation was entirely intuitive.

 I don't care if the axioms are proveable or not...do they work? If the answer is yes, then we hold to them on non-intuitive grounds.

Tilberian wrote:

 

Whatever the answer to those questions is, it is in our heads and of concern only to us. The universe betrays no sign of having the slightest interest in these questions.

 

Right, because science can't answer all questions. These questions are not of the kind which science can answer, science can only answer the questions that we can know the answer to. If there's no way to logically prove something through deduction or induction then science can't answer it. Thus we give these questions our own answers based on our own experience and our interpretations of those experiences.

You are begging the question that there are questions we can't answer using science. So far, there is no evidence of this. We have questions that we haven't answered yet using science. We also have logical problems that confuse us but don't point to any reality outside our minds. However we have not seen any problem in the natural world that is apparently insoluble by science or scientific method. I don't see how you would show that a problem is insoluble by science anyway. How can you show that a problem doesn't have a solution?

Tilberian wrote:

I think people should follow their intuition around like obediant little lapdogs all day long. But it ain't knowledge until it can be justified on rational grounds, without reference to intuition. Or are you forgetting the rigour with which each of the above scientists adhered to the scientific method and refused to make his conclusions public until they could pass every rational test?

 

 

You're missing the point again entirely. Scientists and rational people trying to understand something new have to intuitively grasp the concept before they can ever hope to rigorously prove it. Ever tried proving something when you had no understanding of what you were trying to prove? Have you ever seen the proof of the pythagorean theorem? It's very interesting because it required that the person proving it have a very good intuitive understanding of what he was proving. So good, in fact, that he didn't need to approach the proof directly, but he circled around it and that was the only way to make it possible. Actually there are a lot of proofs apparently, and many of them are quite circuitous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem#Proofs

In short, intuition is no substitute for rigour, but in a rational or scientific mind intuition leads to rigour.

You have shifted your ground. This is a different point than what you were making earlier. You said that the principles of science and logic were ultimately SUPPORTED only on intuitive grounds. Now you are talking about the fact that an intuition often leads to a path of inquiry that ultimately leads to a new discovery in science or logic. Different things.

Axioms are a priori propositions which are accepted intuitively and verified a posteriori.

Without axioms you die. What is intuitive about that?

Axioms cannot be proven and they are usually not even proposed if they do not intuitively seem to correspond to reality.

Axioms are proven in that their reverse is self-negating. They must be true, or else all our thought is wrong. You can make the point that all our thought is wrong, but then you are simply embracing nihilism.

Axioms which are proposed and are not seen as intuitive by enough people are rejected because it becomes clear that they don't correspond well to reality, maybe just someone's misperceptions of reality, but not reality as it is understood by the majority of people.

This may be why axioms are accepted, politically, but it is not how the are supported.

Of course the majority of people are not always right in their perceptions of reality. The basis of knowledge has little to do with axioms, though. Knowledge is defined most basically as true belief with justification.

Yet that justification cannot be arrived at without the support of axioms.

However belief with justification is necessary but often insufficient for anyone to claim knowledge as shown by Gettier, because a person may hold a false belief with justification. The problem comes down to we can't always know everything about a given problem. And we definitely do not know everything about the universe.

I have no problem with anyone holding a justified belief. However, a lack of evidence does not constitute a justification for anything. And all the beliefs of theists are unjusitified using any legitimate standard.

Axioms are, however, a form of knowledge. Axioms are known as a priori knowledge. Experience is another form of knowledge. That's a posteriori knowledge. Also our suspicion is not only backed by intuition, it was driven by intuition in the first place. It's not based on any really good reasons in reality, it's based on scientists liked the way electricity and magnetism were combined into a single force completely described by 4 equations. It was simple, it was elegant, it was everything we want to believe the universe is. The search for grand unification started from that. After that it was justified by the combination of electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force into the electroweak force. So intuition alone sparked the search for unification of forces and it only subsequently found justification in the unification of some of the forces. I'm still not sure but I think it's at least possible that the electroweak force has been unified with the strong nuclear force. I actually haven't seen anything which states this outright. I believe that this is still an active problem in physics with some good prospects. But the search for grand unification and a quantum theory of gravity are entirely prompted by an intuitive belief that such a search will be justified.

So what? In the end, no one will accept Unification as fact until it has been justified using entirely non-intuitive means.

Wow, that was the best example you could come up with? A logical series? That would hardly count as new information about the world. What novel scientific theory in history was based on purely deductive logic? Inductive logic is intuitive logic.

No it isn't. We can observe that induction works.

It's validity is debated within logic.

But its necessity to thought is not debated, therefore I say the inductionists win.

Inductive arguments are arguments whose conclusions appear to be justified by the conclusion but are by their nature not as certain as deductive arguments.

This is only true when people don't consider the possibility that deductive logic may be just as flawed.

In inductive reasoning one is compelled to make intuitive leaps.

Support this. I can make inductive conclusions using only reason, and I did so with the number series above.

Inductive reasoning works in scientific reasoning hand in hand with falsifiability. This is because inductive reasoning can never be certain unless we have a way of falsifying it. That's why falsification is so important in science.

I never said that inductive claims weren't falsifiable. What is your point here? 

Also when you predict the number series will continue the way that it does it's deduction. Since you're just deducing the accepted counting series, unless you have reason to believe someone redefined the numbers for that particular series...

Exactly the claim of anti-inductionists. How do you know the numbering system didn't magically change? This is why I give anti-inductionists such short shrift.

I'll have to do the rest later, my family is calliing for me to go.

 Merry Christmas, all.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown

A few points about mathematical concepts.

A 'square circle' is non-existent by definition, so is not in the same category of truth status as assertions about reality, such as the existence or non-existence of actual entities or objects. Pretty much every time I see it referred to in these discussions, it really doesn't make any point.

Regarding geometric points and lines, these are quite valid concepts in mathematics, and there are an infinite number of points in a line. There is a whole area of maths addressing the concept of infinity, in fact a series of different 'trans-finite' numbers, with specific definitions.

Zeno's paradox has been fully addressed by areas of math which deal with the summation of infinite series of numbers. The error which led to the 'paradox' was the intuitive assumption that the sum of an infinite set of numbers 'must' be infinite, IOW Zeno's paradox is a good example of how intuition can lead us to make incorrect conclusions.

So the Greeks difficulties were just that they had not developed the additional tools and concepts in math to handle these 'problems'.

 

Actually my point is that the concepts of points and lines are accepted and rightfully so, but not rigorously proven or even proveable, they are intuitively accepted constructs.  A priori axioms.

And any geometry which assumes infinite space is subject even today to Zeno's Paradox.  Which is why no proofs even today in continuous space speak of anything moving.  They developed the concept of translation to more rigorously replace the concept of motion, which Zeno's Paradox does not allow.

The argument example in the OP is indeed invalid, but I've never seen it used. Of the few strong atheists I've seen explain their position here, it's never come down to shifting the burden of proof. It's generally properties attributed to a specific deity being contradictory, lack of ontological status, etc. The less description there is given to a god, the harder it is to refute the claim; but then, by that time a god is indistinguishable from nature, and there's nothing left to refute.

 

This will be my third attempt to clarify this thread.  I have actually seen on this forum atheists shifting the burden of proof.  That is why I made this thread.  It was not to my specific example, I just used that example because it was simple, it was the first thing that popped into my head.  And actually atheists in this forum have even tried to shift the burden of proof on me.  Hence this thread.  It happens, it's relevant.

While i understand the original post, and the problem the threadstarter states (and partially agree with it) i dont see the relevance of it.

 

I will clearify why. 

First of all there are barely strong Atheists out there that apply this kind of absolute certainity.

Second, they mostly use their strong "i know god doesnt exist" to a positive claim about a god already made. I.E. they dont use it on all things imaginable. They dont go around and scream out the things they dont believe in but are possible.

They focus mostly on the statement of a god thats existance they think is false and contradictory. 

Their statement is probably and mostly used to "tick" the one claiming god exists off. Of course one could argue if this is a nice thing to do or not but thats irrelevant here.

 And finally third, the existance of a concept (aka everything that we can think off) is not proof for the existance of said concept in nature. I.E. the idea of a squared circle exists, that doesnt mean a squared circle exists. I think this is called the identity of an object which can not be proof for the object itself.

Ill adress here the point you tried to make with geometry and mathematics, where some concepts seem to be impossible in real life. Yes i agree, i cant prove the existance of a infinite 1 dimensional line (in nature). yet nobody ever claimed such a thing exists in reality, it is merely a concept that is used to describe certain things.

Now, i fully accept that the concept of god is real. 

What i dont accept is that the concept has a representation in the "limited world", also calling up different universes to rationalize the concept doesnt do the trick.

As a last thing on the supernatural:

Everything that exists is natural. The supernatural does not exists since it would be outside of existance, hence be nonexistant.

Now to claim that you know for sure that god (supernatural god) does not exists, would be perfectly adequate in this view of mine.

 

EDIT

i fully agree with magilium. so the statement in the OP is valid IF you are talking about ANY god (therefore ANY concept) which atheists dont. Atheists focus on the claim of "god" proposed by a religion.

Since that concept "god" (i think everyone can agree with that) is well defined and falacious, we actually can say that the object described is nonexistant.

 

For the relevance please see my response to magilium above.  as for the supposed proofs of the nonexistence of even the christian god, they're all bad ontological or epistemological arguments.  There are no valid proofs which can prove or disprove any god concept.  Just proofs that some people find sufficient because they haven't or haven't wanted to take the time to determine why the proofs fail.

Ontology is the philosophy of being or existence, but you cannot use ontology to determine whether or not something exists, you can only use ontology to give ontologies ot things we know exist.  Epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge.  It is not, however a philosophy of truth, and it only deals with what we know or can know, it does not deal with what is or is not true.

Thanks for clarifying that.

I was about to point out this very point, that you were using the term 'positive' in the informal sense of a strongly expressed argument, rather than in the more philosophical/logical sense of a statement asserting the truth of some proposition, where denying the truth of some proposition would be classed as a 'negative' assertion. It is in this latter sense rather than in the sense of the degree of certainty being expressed, that 'burden of proof' arguments are usually made.

In practical terms, we normally place the burden of proof on the person trying to assert the truth of proposition which has prima facie the least likelihood.

In more formal arguments, it really should be limited to propositions asserting the existence of some actual entity or process or phenomena which cannot be directly and unambiguously observed.

Once you are into propositions about other propositions, such as a claim that another claim is false, it becomes problematic. If I claim that your claim about the existence of God is false, it is ultimately futile to make assertions that because you are the one making a claim, the burden of proof lies with you. This long thread seems to have shown just how unresolvable this interpretation of 'burden of proof' is.

We really need to restrict it to the straightforward case of a claim that some identifiable entity or object exists, or closely related types of claims. Russell's teapot is a classic example of this. If someone proposes that something exists, but provides no positive evidence actually pointing to the existence of this entity or object, then there is a problem. Even if we have no practical way of disproving the proposition, and it seems contrary to normal experience, or 'intuitively' improbable, if you like, then it is entirely reasonable to treat it as not likely enough to concern ourselves with.

IOW this is where the burden of proof should be placed - on the person claiming the positive existence of the thing, regardless of how they phrase it. Until they produce evidence pointing specifically to some particular God concept, ie not just a gap in 'natural' explanations, we have nothing to disprove or argue against.

Since there are a literally infinite number of things which, to the best of our current knowledge, could exist, and are not currently or in the foreseeable future disprovable, the idea that we are somehow obliged to keep any non-disprovable assertion in mind is absurd.

 

The most important difference between Russel's teapot and concepts such as god or supernatural is that Bertrand Russel, when he proposed his teapot, also was kind enough to make it clear he was making his teapot up.  Also he would be asserting the existence of an actual manmade object which he never saw nor could he possibly have seen, existing in a place where no human could have put it.  Can you apply the same kind of argument against a concept of god?  It's not manmade, so we can't argue that it can't exist independant of man.  And we can't argue that it can't be wherever it is if we didn't put it there.  In reality Russel's Teapot doesn't apply.  Then the majority of fairy tales are told as fiction so there is never any assertion that the stories or many of the creatures within are real.  Thus those creatures ban be effectively ruled out as being real.  The authors make it clear that they made the creatures up.  Mythology is a bit harder, the creatures mentioned were believed to exist and so there's no way to argue with absolute certainty that they did not.  We can also not be certain that the creatures mentioned were not based on real historical creatures or people.  At best we can base our conclusions on our experience, or our lack of experience of such creatures.  And we can always be wrong about our conclusions.  Esspecially conclusions which are based only on a lack of evidence.  It may be unlikely that we are, more so in the case of creatures which are supposed to be tangible, creatures we are supposed to be able to see and interact with.  But in the case of concepts which are less tangible, it then becomes hard to be sure that we don't already interact with them in our day to day lives and just don't know it.

Tilberian wrote:

I don't. All I know is that it works. And since that is the strongest possible claim to knowledge, I can say with perfect certainty that logic is the correct way to reason about reality.

 

Yes you can, but the only way anyone knows this is intuitively. You can't rigorously prove it can you? If you could you'd be famous.

Intuition is an emotion. Emotions cannot be categorized as empirical knowledge.

An emotion is a complex reaction pattern, involving experiential, behavioral, and physiological elements, by which the individual attempts to deal with a personally significant matter of event. It arises without conscious effort and is either positive or negative in its reference to emotional values associated with a stimulus. Modern views propose that emotions are brain states that quickly assign value to outcomes and provide a simple plan of action. Thus, emotion can be viewed as a type of computation, a rapid, automatic summary that initiates appropriate actions. When it comes to perception, you can spot an object more quickly if it is, say, a spider rather than a roll of tape. In the realm of memory, emotional events are laid down differently by a parallel memory system involving a brain area called the amygdala.

 

Emotions are pre-concluded responses to stimuli. If the information (an individual's experience) involved in forming an emotional response is incorrect, intuition is in error. You must analyze all the data that influences your intuition for truth in order to consider intuition valid.

I'm atheist

For the relevance please see my response to magilium above.  as for the supposed proofs of the nonexistence of even the christian god, they're all bad ontological or epistemological arguments.  There are no valid proofs which can prove or disprove any god concept. 

 

what is a valid proof to disprove or prove a god concept or god?

 enlighten me, i dont see your point.

 This discussion is utterly pointless since it implies a heavy shift of the burden of proof, which i dont see happening. also even if it is true, how does that relate to anything? does it benefit anything if you aproach the discussion with "maybe there is a god but i dont believe in him because its unprobable" and spend 30 minutes clarifying everything? in real life that doesnt work, ppl momentarily label you as a "fencesitter" or a soul to be save because you give yourself the voulnerability of doubt.

I think its contraproductive in this case since you deal with hard faith on the other side of the argument.

Its just unecessary ( tho intelectual honest) tactic opening you are leaving from the beginning.

Im an agnostic atheist myself, but i say Atheist in public to show my standpoint as firmly as a theists. it benefits me in the debates. 

Yes, I can rigorous prove it. If you stop using first principles of logic for a week, you will be dead at the end of it. I win.

 

That's a really bad argument that in no way constitutes proof of logic.  Animals are capable of reasoning but not aware that they're doing it.  Nor can they be said to apply logic.  Yet they generally live longer than a week.  You can't even prove your assertion that not applying basic logic for a week would result in my death by the end of it.  What about instinct?  Or intuition.

I don't care if the axioms are proveable or not...do they work? If the answer is yes, then we hold to them on non-intuitive grounds.

 

False, Euclid's definitional axioms are even held on intuitional grounds.  Everything he argued follows from his definitional axioms, however we only understand them to correspond in any way to reality intuitionally.  A Priori reasoning like Euclid's was entirely intuitional.  And you completely ignored how intuitional understanding of complex concepts can lead to some interesting proofs of the concepts which cannot be reached through any direct application of the information.  You're still dismissing without reason the importance of intuition just for the sake of not having to acknowledge that intuition is a valid way of knowing and understanding things.

You are begging the question that there are questions we can't answer using science. So far, there is no evidence of this. We have questions that we haven't answered yet using science. We also have logical problems that confuse us but don't point to any reality outside our minds. However we have not seen any problem in the natural world that is apparently insoluble by science or scientific method. I don't see how you would show that a problem is insoluble by science anyway. How can you show that a problem doesn't have a solution?

 

Actually this is a fact acknowledged by scientists.  Science can't answer questions which cannot be falsified.  To even try would be to assume more knowledge than we know we have.  How do you prove something absolutely true?  Science doesn't even try.  Instead science asks questions which it can conceivably prove wrong.  If it then tries and fails to prove it wrong, the theory is verified at least somewhat.  Then science seeks to prove some other aspect of it wrong until the theory either fails a falsifying test, in which case we know that it's insufficient to completely describe nature and it needs to be revised or replaced if its problems are too fundamental.  At what point, though, does science stop and declare a theory absolutely proven?  Never, that would imply that we knew of and tried all possible falsifying experiments.  Such an argument would be an argument from lack of imagination.  But how does science determine the truth of questions it cannot falsify?

 

You have shifted your ground. This is a different point than what you were making earlier. You said that the principles of science and logic were ultimately SUPPORTED only on intuitive grounds. Now you are talking about the fact that an intuition often leads to a path of inquiry that ultimately leads to a new discovery in science or logic. Different things.

 

No I was always trying to say that intuition is a valid method by which we can gain information about reality.  A priori knowledge is knowledged gained from intuition and pretty much all of our knowledge has its foundation in some a priori axiom.  So yes intuition does make up the foundation of science and logic.  But I never said intuition was also not an integral part of the process of gaining knowledge.  All inductive arguments rely on intuition, and even many deductive arguments rely on an intuitive grasp of the bigger picture which then allows us to solve a problem by circling around it.

Without axioms you die. What is intuitive about that?

 

The statement itself is intuitive to you, and also wrong.  How would you rigorously prove it?  You can't.  And you esspecially can't because humans survived quite well even before we had even the concept of an axiom.  That was a concept a long time in the making.  If we die without them, it must have been a miracle that we lived long enough to even think them up.  By the way axioms themselves are an intuitive concept.  How do you even prove that there are self evident truths?  Oops truth is an intuitive concept...

 

Axioms are proven in that their reverse is self-negating. They must be true, or else all our thought is wrong. You can make the point that all our thought is wrong, but then you are simply embracing nihilism.

 

How do we prove that their reverse is self negating?  What do you think the definition of intuition is?  How do we understand that axioms hold if their reverse is self negating?  And is that true of all axioms which hold?  I'm not trying to make the point that all our knowledge is wrong.  But I am trying to make the point that we are not infallible.  There are things we know which may not be correct, and there are possibly things which we cannot know.  It's impossible to tell.

 

This may be why axioms are accepted, politically, but it is not how the are supported.

 

Yes axioms are supported by our intuitive understanding that they seem to correspond to reality.  Axioms are accepted because the intuition about reality that they represent seems to also explain other aspects of reality.

 

Yet that justification cannot be arrived at without the support of axioms.

 

Yes, the justification is based on axioms which are intuitive, but axioms don't have to be true.  Axioms which, to us, seem true because they make so much sense intuitively may not be true.  We also hold assumptions about reality based only on intuition which may not be true.  Euclid assumed that space was continuous, this assumption was implicit in his axioms, but the assumption, which was purely intuitive to Euclid, is shown by modern physics to very likely be wrong.  Even defining a coordinate system using RxR as the plane the system is defined on assumes continuous space.  And Newton and Leibitz calculus really only works on continuous space.  You can't differentiate or integrate in discrete space.

I have no problem with anyone holding a justified belief. However, a lack of evidence does not constitute a justification for anything. And all the beliefs of theists are unjusitified using any legitimate standard.

 

True belief with justification is the definition of knowledge, assuming the belief is true.  Belief with justification is necessary but not sufficient to ensure knowledge.  You can hold a false belief with justification.  You can also hold a true belief with no justification.  You can't say that just because they have no justification they are wrong, you can only say that they don't know they're right.  I have no problem with anyone holding a justified belief also, but I don't assume that just because someone holds a justified belief it's true, unless that belief is falsifiable and has been verified by falsifying experiments.  Otherwise I consider it an informed opinion.  It may or may not be true.  I also, however, don't assume that just because a person holds a belief without justification that belief must be false, it could be true.  I consider that person to hold just an opinion, and it only annoys me when they claim they know.  How can they possibly know without justification?  And even if they had justification it still doesn't necessarily equal knowledge, unless it can be falsified, it may then be or not be knowledge, but something which can be falsified has at least the potential to become knowledge.

So what? In the end, no one will accept Unification as fact until it has been justified using entirely non-intuitive means.

 

What nonintuitive means?  No one would investigate any potential means unless they intuitively believed those means would pay off.  If and hopefully when we find a theory of grand unification it will very likely be completely rigorous, but it was also be based on intuitive axioms, but axioms we can all accept as true, they can even be shown to be true intuitively, just not proven.  Also, though, the method which will lead to the Grand Unified Theory will be inductive and thus intuitive, because the scientists who discover it will inductively conclude something that they will subsequently try to deductively prove.  They will, I'm sure, do this with many things.  Many of them will turn out to be wrong, but likely in some other way useful.  In fact String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity are two very different approaches to the same thing.  They are both at this state mainly inductive, with the deductive proofs still coming.  Both are believed intuitively by the scientists persuing them to be the best candidate for a quantum theory of gravity.

No it isn't. We can observe that induction works.

 

What part of observation and generalization is not intuitive?

 

But its necessity to thought is not debated, therefore I say the inductionists win.

 

It's validity and thus its necessity to truth is debated.  Induction is allowed by logic if it is paired with falsification.  Induction is considered invalid on its own specifically because induction is intuitive, not rigorous.  It is a generalization of observation.  So your previous comment in this response was a bit backwards, induction is not confirmed by observation it is derived from observation plus generalization.

This is only true when people don't consider the possibility that deductive logic may be just as flawed.

 

No it's irrelevant.  Even the most valid inductive argument does not lead one necessarily to the conclusion.  All valid deductive arguments do.  Deductive arguments can only be "flawed" in the sense of being unsound.  The premises may not be true, however if all of the premises in a valid deductive argument are true the conclusion of that valid deductive argument will always be true.  This is not the case with even the best inductive arguments, hence the necessity of falsification.

Support this. I can make inductive conclusions using only reason, and I did so with the number series above.

 

Like I said already in this response, what part of observation and generalization is not intuitive?

I never said that inductive claims weren't falsifiable. What is your point here? 

 

My point is that inductive reasoning is not accepted as valid in logic unless it consistently passes all falsification tests.  And since induction is necessary in science, induction must be paired with falsification in science.  And this is due to the inherently intuitive nature of induction.

 

Exactly the claim of anti-inductionists. How do you know the numbering system didn't magically change? This is why I give anti-inductionists such short shrift.

 

Actually this is a silly response, because I was pointing out that your example is ONLY inductive if you have reason to believe that someone redefined the numbers but have no way to be certain what they redefined them to.  Otherwise it is purely deductive.  You saw the beginning of that series and were necessarily locked into the rest of it.  No other continuation of the series would work.  Series like that are the kinds of questions you see in deductive logic puzzles...usually much more complex, though.

what is a valid proof to disprove or prove a god concept or god?

 enlighten me, i dont see your point.

 This discussion is utterly pointless since it implies a heavy shift of the burden of proof, which i dont see happening. also even if it is true, how does that relate to anything? does it benefit anything if you aproach the discussion with "maybe there is a god but i dont believe in him because its unprobable" and spend 30 minutes clarifying everything? in real life that doesnt work, ppl momentarily label you as a "fencesitter" or a soul to be save because you give yourself the voulnerability of doubt.

I think its contraproductive in this case since you deal with hard faith on the other side of the argument.

Its just unecessary ( tho intelectual honest) tactic opening you are leaving from the beginning.

Im an agnostic atheist myself, but i say Atheist in public to show my standpoint as firmly as a theists. it benefits me in the debates. 

 

I can see that you didn't get my point or you wouldn't have asked me what is a valid proof or disproof of a god concept or god.  I just said there aren't any.  Trying to use ontology to prove or disprove the existence of something we don't already know does or does not exist is a misuse of ontology.  Attempting to use epistemology to show whether or not any proposition is true is a misuse of epistemology.  Also it is impossible to logically prove or disprove anything if the relevant terms are not logically coherently defined.  As of yet there is no logically coherent definition for any of the relevant terms to a logical proof for or against the existence of god, thus there are no valid proofs for or against the existence of god.

As for the shift of the burden of proof, it's relevant because I've seen exactly such a shift in these very forums.  What is irrelevant is whether or not YOU have seen such a shift of the burden of proof.

I'm not dealing with hard faith.  I can eliminate faith from an argument with one question and one statement:

Name a single belief that cannot be justified by faith?  Anything which justified absolutely everything justifies absolutely nothing.

I don't find it counterproductive to try to get some people on the Rational Response Squad forum to be a little more rational.

Intelectual honesty is always necessary in a debate.  If you show yourself to be intellectually dishonest in a debate you lose credibility.  If you don't care about your credibility in a debate, why are you even debating?

I usually try to be as precise as possible in a debate with theists.  I state my position clearly but not with the words agnostic atheist.  Unfortunately with theists, you need to be superfluous.  Their misconceptions of the words "atheist" or "agnostic atheist" allow for very clear misunderstandings and actually even after I clearly state my position, I still get irrelevant questions.

also even if it is true, how does that relate to anything? does it benefit anything if you aproach the discussion with "maybe there is a god but i dont believe in him because its unprobable" and spend 30 minutes clarifying everything? in real life that doesnt work, ppl momentarily label you as a "fencesitter" or a soul to be save because you give yourself the voulnerability of doubt.

 

This has never been a problem for me because I never try to argue with theists about whether or not god exists.  I argue with them, instead, the epistemological question of how do they know whether or not god exists.  They may still be right, a point I am willing to conceded, but they can never know that they are right.  It's just an assumption on their part.  Then I point out the weak induction and fallacies of irrelevance which constitutes the foundation of their every justification.  Finally when they are forced to resort to faith, I ask my question and deliver my comment.  It rarely works to directly convert people, mainly because they do not understand basic logic.  But I almost always get to them stop arguing with me, I like to tell myself it's because they're troubled by what I have said, and esspecially their inability to answer my question concerning faith.

AdamTM wrote:

also even if it is true, how does that relate to anything? does it benefit anything if you aproach the discussion with "maybe there is a god but i dont believe in him because its unprobable" and spend 30 minutes clarifying everything? in real life that doesnt work, ppl momentarily label you as a "fencesitter" or a soul to be save because you give yourself the voulnerability of doubt.

 

 

This has never been a problem for me because I never try to argue with theists about whether or not god exists.  I argue with them, instead, the epistemological question of how do they know whether or not god exists.  They may still be right, a point I am willing to conceded, but they can never know that they are right.  It's just an assumption on their part.  Then I point out the weak induction and fallacies of irrelevance which constitutes the foundation of their every justification.  Finally when they are forced to resort to faith, I ask my question and deliver my comment.  It rarely works to directly convert people, mainly because they do not understand basic logic.  But I almost always get to them stop arguing with me, I like to tell myself it's because they're troubled by what I have said, and esspecially their inability to answer my question concerning faith.

 

Ok, i get your point. 

and like i said, i agree with it on some terms, that being a strong atheist is not a good idea to yourself. 

And i rather educate christians, than debate them how the KNOW there is a god. Since this argument will come back at you very fast if the person you talk to is somewhat intelligent. and i think most the christians exactly realize that their belief is irrational in terms of "i dont know for sure but i know for semi-sure and enough to believe in it" .

And that can be better adressed with science by providing evidence that is as likely. Like placing an alternative.

"Winning" a debate is not about the other person giving up the debate, but about the other person carrying something out of the debate that is valuable.

Just making them troubled is not enough. Providing scientific evidence and likely solutions and alternatives that make them trouble themselves after they leave the discussion is the goal. (this comment is just a digression)

And i rather educate christians, than debate them how the KNOW there is a god. Since this argument will come back at you very fast if the person you talk to is somewhat intelligent. and i think most the christians exactly realize that their belief is irrational in terms of "i dont know for sure but i know for semi-sure and enough to believe in it" .

And that can be better adressed with science by providing evidence that is as likely. Like placing an alternative.

"Winning" a debate is not about the other person giving up the debate, but about the other person carrying something out of the debate that is valuable

Trust me all of this is well known to me.  However if I maintain the focus on what they know and only point out the logical fallacies in what justifications they bring up then there's no valid way in which they caan turn the epistemological argument on me.  They would be shifting the burden of proof.  If I make a claim of knowledge, or claim that I know anything I already know I have to have the evidence to back up my claim, so I usually do.  Trust me when I say I am more than adequate at backing up scientific claims.

Also you can't "win" an informal debate, so I don't try.  You can't make most theists carry something valueable away from any debate either.  The most you can do is force them to have to think about concepts which they try hard never to think about.

Whenever I debate a scientific topic, which is probably somewhat more often than I debate purely philosophical topics, I always provide scientific evidence.  The problem is that most of the time the people I provide scientific evidence to think they have scientific evidence of their own.  Almost invariably this "evidence" they have is derived from creationist websites like Answers in Genesis, which misrepresent, misinterpret, or misunderstand scientific evidence, or they just look for outdated information that says what they want to hear, or they flat out lie and don't disclose their sources.  The problem then becomes one of who are they gonna believe?  Me or them.  Naturally they believe the people telling them what they want to hear.  Most of the time they comfort themselves that I have been decieved by satan any time I debate scientific topics.  The philosophical arguments are the ones that have the greatest likelyhood of sticking.

Very strongly established theories in current science are very counter-intuitive, especially quantum theory and Relativity. It was the need to explain observational data which contradicted our intuitions which forced us to develop these theories. Even Einstein could not overcome his intuition that Qyantum Theory could not be true, when he said the 'God does not play dice.

It was our intuitions use to inform us that the Earth was flat, that the Sun went around the Earth.

And you still won't acknowledge that the intution of Zeno's paradox is explicitly in error. 

Intuition is mostly just a combination of instinct and internalised conclusions from actual explicit reasoning and observation, which serves the evolutionary purpose of allowing us to react to commonly recurring situations quickly, without having to repeat the original reasoning process every time. If the actual situation closely matches that under which the intuitions were established, they are useful, but can be very misleadingwhen we are confronted with novel situations and data.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

Very strongly established theories in current science are very counter-intuitive, especially quantum theory and Relativity. It was the need to explain observational data which contradicted our intuitions which forced us to develop these theories. Even Einstein could not overcome his intuition that Qyantum Theory could not be true, when he said the 'God does not play dice.

It was our intuitions use to inform us that the Earth was flat, that the Sun went around the Earth.

And you still won't acknowledge that the intution of Zeno's paradox is explicitly in error. 

Intuition is mostly just a combination of instinct and internalised conclusions from actual explicit reasoning and observation, which serves the evolutionary purpose of allowing us to react to commonly recurring situations quickly, without having to repeat the original reasoning process every time. If the actual situation closely matches that under which the intuitions were established, they are useful, but can be very misleadingwhen we are confronted with novel situations and data.

 

You've missed my point on the importance of intuition entirely.  I imagine what we learned about quantum mechanics was surprising, but why did we seek out the quantum structure of nature in the first place?  Because we intuitively understood that understanding it might be important or useful.  Of course I am aware that the contents of quantum mechanics is quite counter intuitive, but this does not negate the fact that we wouldn't know anything at all about quantum mechanics if no one thought that intuition were important, or if no one were willing to follow their intuition when it suggested that studying things on the quantum level might prove useful...or studying anything at all might prove useful.

As for the earth being flat being intuitive, that's true, but so is the earth being round.  How is that relevant?  It was going against most people's intuition to assert that the earth is spherical, however it was not against everyone's intuition.  Certain people made observations which, working with their knowledge of geometry, allowed them to intuit that the earth is not flat.  Just because something goes against the intuition of the uneducated or undereducated majority does not mean that such an idea is counterintuitive to everyone, or counter intuitive in general, or even in reality.

Also I never denied that zeno's Paradox is explicitly in error, of course it is.  but it being explicitly in error doesn't change the fact that the paradox is in no way in error when applied to continuous space.  Zeno's Paradox is a very real problem for Euclidean geometry and any plane that is defined on the entire double set of real numbers.  And that was my entire point about Zeno's Paradox and that was the case to which I was limiting the paradox, basically I was limiting my application of the paradox to the mathematical realm in which the paradox is NOT in error.  You're insistence that Zeno's Paradox is explicitly in error is irrelevant and completely misses the point.

Intuition is the basis of induction.  Induction is basically observation with generalization.  What logical basis is there for the generalization which comes from induction?  How do we know that the generalization is always true?  inductive arguments are strongly supported by their premises, but the conclusions are not made necessary by the premises in the same way that they are by valid deductive arguments.  Intuition is what you said, this is true, but it is not only what you said.  Intuition also allows us to make leaps in reasoning which are not necessarily supported by our premises, but which usually are strongly supported by them, and may or may not be true.  This is why induction is generally not a valid form of logical reasoning.  Strong induction can be made valid when paired with falsification, which is why the two are used together in science.  Inductive reasoning is necessary to scientific thought, but is impossible to prove without falsification.

magilum wrote:

The argument example in the OP is indeed invalid, but I've never seen it used. Of the few strong atheists I've seen explain their position here, it's never come down to shifting the burden of proof. It's generally properties attributed to a specific deity being contradictory, lack of ontological status, etc. The less description there is given to a god, the harder it is to refute the claim; but then, by that time a god is indistinguishable from nature, and there's nothing left to refute.

 

 

This will be my third attempt to clarify this thread.  I have actually seen on this forum atheists shifting the burden of proof.  That is why I made this thread.  It was not to my specific example, I just used that example because it was simple, it was the first thing that popped into my head.  And actually atheists in this forum have even tried to shift the burden of proof on me.  Hence this thread.  It happens, it's relevant.

 

Giving a specific example could end your nightmare then. I repeat that I've never seen the positive claim that a god doesn't exist paired with a shifting of the burden of proof. I've seen weak atheism defended this way, but it's appropriate as it doesn't pose a positive claim.

"The "beyond" -- why a beyond, if not as a means for besmirching this world?"
Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols

"Anxiety is freedom's actuality as the possibility of possibility."
Søren Kierkegaard

Giving a specific example could end your nightmare then. I repeat that I've never seen the positive claim that a god doesn't exist paired with a shifting of the burden of proof. I've seen weak atheism defended this way, but it's appropriate as it doesn't pose a positive claim.

 

Actually my example was a specific one that had the advantage of being simple.  Are you trying to tell me I should make a seperate thread for each specific occurance I found?  Or shouldn't an example that demonstrates the error I encountered be sufficient to make my point?  If you abstract the essence of the argument from the content you should be able to understand that my point had nothing to do with the specifics of the argument and everything to do with the structure.  That's what I've been focusing on.  But apparently not what some others have been focusing on...Also it's completely irrelevant to my OP that you haven't seen anyone make the specific claim that I used in my example.  My example wasn't about the claim, it had nothing to do with the specifics of the hypothetical argument, it had everything to do with the shifting the burden of proof fallacy that was in the argument.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Very strongly established theories in current science are very counter-intuitive, especially quantum theory and Relativity. It was the need to explain observational data which contradicted our intuitions which forced us to develop these theories. Even Einstein could not overcome his intuition that Qyantum Theory could not be true, when he said the 'God does not play dice.

It was our intuitions use to inform us that the Earth was flat, that the Sun went around the Earth.

And you still won't acknowledge that the intution of Zeno's paradox is explicitly in error.

Intuition is mostly just a combination of instinct and internalised conclusions from actual explicit reasoning and observation, which serves the evolutionary purpose of allowing us to react to commonly recurring situations quickly, without having to repeat the original reasoning process every time. If the actual situation closely matches that under which the intuitions were established, they are useful, but can be very misleadingwhen we are confronted with novel situations and data.

 

 

You've missed my point on the importance of intuition entirely. I imagine what we learned about quantum mechanics was surprising, but why did we seek out the quantum structure of nature in the first place? Because we intuitively understood that understanding it might be important or useful. Of course I am aware that the contents of quantum mechanics is quite counter intuitive, but this does not negate the fact that we wouldn't know anything at all about quantum mechanics if no one thought that intuition were important, or if no one were willing to follow their intuition when it suggested that studying things on the quantum level might prove useful...or studying anything at all might prove useful.

As for the earth being flat being intuitive, that's true, but so is the earth being round. How is that relevant? It was going against most people's intuition to assert that the earth is spherical, however it was not against everyone's intuition. Certain people made observations which, working with their knowledge of geometry, allowed them to intuit that the earth is not flat. Just because something goes against the intuition of the uneducated or undereducated majority does not mean that such an idea is counterintuitive to everyone, or counter intuitive in general, or even in reality.

 

My problem is that you seem to be using the term 'intuition' way too broadly to apply to almost all aspects of thought and analysis.

 

Also I never denied that zeno's Paradox is explicitly in error, of course it is. but it being explicitly in error doesn't change the fact that the paradox is in no way in error when applied to continuous space. Zeno's Paradox is a very real problem for Euclidean geometry and any plane that is defined on the entire double set of real numbers. And that was my entire point about Zeno's Paradox and that was the case to which I was limiting the paradox, basically I was limiting my application of the paradox to the mathematical realm in which the paradox is NOT in error. You're insistence that Zeno's Paradox is explicitly in error is irrelevant and completely misses the point.

Zeno's paradoxes are all based on misconceptions, utterly irrelevant to this discussion.

 

Intuition is the basis of induction. Induction is basically observation with generalization. What logical basis is there for the generalization which comes from induction? How do we know that the generalization is always true?

We don't and we don't need to.

inductive arguments are strongly supported by their premises, but the conclusions are not made necessary by the premises in the same way that they are by valid deductive arguments.

 

Irrelevant, deductive arguments are not capable, by themselves, of establishing the sort of real-world probabilistic arguments that induction[ addresses.

Intuition is what you said, this is true, but it is not only what you said. Intuition also allows us to make leaps in reasoning which are not necessarily supported by our premises, but which usually are strongly supported by them, and may or may not be true.

 

Intuitions are part of the mental processes we employ when developing hypotheses, sure, but you seem to me to be using the term far too broadly.

This is why induction is generally not a valid form of logical reasoning.

 

It is in a different context to deductive reasoning. Simple binary value logic is not applicable - induction addresses modes of investigation where deduction is not adequate by itself. Deduction is necessary but not sufficient, when we are deaing with data which is not absolutely verified or even verifiable.

Strong induction can be made valid when paired with falsification, which is why the two are used together in science. Inductive reasoning is necessary to scientific thought, but is impossible to prove without falsification.

 

 

Falsifiability cannot prove anything, only disprove it. In practice it is a matter of comparing how well a given theory explains the data and, if possible, makes predictions, compared to whatever alternative candidate theories are available - strict proof is not necessarily of concern for a theory to be useful and to advance the state of science. The important task is to devise experiments or observations which will distinguish as clearly as possible between candidate hypotheses, IOW think of situations where they make very different predictions.

As long as a theory adds to our ability to make useful predictions and points to fruitful areas of further investigations, it is reasonable to assume it has captured at least some significant aspects of reality, which is all any of our mental constructs can really hope to do. If it makes some prediction that actually seems to be wrong, if course that means there is something wrong with it, but it doesn't mean we completely throw it out - we don't throw out either QT or General Relativity because there are regimes where we haven't yet resolved conflicts between them.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

magilium wrote:

 

Giving a specific example could end your nightmare then. I repeat that I've never seen the positive claim that a god doesn't exist paired with a shifting of the burden of proof. I've seen weak atheism defended this way, but it's appropriate as it doesn't pose a positive claim.

 

 

Actually my example was a specific one that had the advantage of being simple.  Are you trying to tell me I should make a seperate thread for each specific occurance I found?  Or shouldn't an example that demonstrates the error I encountered be sufficient to make my point?

I haven't seen an example at all, which should be easy to provide considering this epidemic of fallacious reasoning in atheists. Perhaps I've missed the specific example provided -- what page is it on?

If you abstract the essence of the argument from the content you should be able to understand that my point had nothing to do with the specifics of the argument and everything to do with the structure.

 

Maybe it's a failure of imagination on my part, but I'd benefit from an example to support the premise, rather than have the abstract described over again.

That's what I've been focusing on.  But apparently not what some others have been focusing on...Also it's completely irrelevant to my OP that you haven't seen anyone make the specific claim that I used in my example.  My example wasn't about the claim, it had nothing to do with the specifics of the hypothetical argument, it had everything to do with the shifting the burden of proof fallacy that was in the argument.

 

I have only the 'example' given.

"The "beyond" -- why a beyond, if not as a means for besmirching this world?"
Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols

"Anxiety is freedom's actuality as the possibility of possibility."
Søren Kierkegaard

My problem is that you seem to be using the term 'intuition' way too broadly to apply to almost all aspects of thought and analysis.

 

These should help explain how I am using intuition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_%28philosophy%29

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intuition

http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5f.htm

http://www.bloomu.edu/departments/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/intuition.pdf

http://www.unc.edu/~knobe/Sosa.pdf

Hopefully that helps clear things up.

Zeno's paradoxes are all based on misconceptions, utterly irrelevant to this discussion.

 

Zeno's race paradox is based on a proper understanding of the spatial assumption of euclidean geometry.  This understanding is also a very good understanding of the spatial assumptions of a plane with a double real set coordinate system.  Because these systems assume a continuous space, and by that it means that between any two points there is infinite points.  It does not apply to real spacetime according to modern physics, but I wasn't applying it to real spacetime.  Should we do away with calculus because we can neither differentiate nor integrate over discrete space and real space is discrete?  No, calculus is still useful as long as we assume for the sake of calculations that space is continuous.

We don't and we don't need to

 

That's right, we don't, which means it could be wrong, so why do we accept it?  And no it's not because we don't need to know.  We accept it because intuitively it strikes us as true...basically it strikes us as true immediately without the intervention of other ideas or deductive reasoning.

Irrelevant, deductive arguments are not capable, by themselves, of establishing the sort of real-world probabilistic arguments that induction[ addresses.

 

This is why induction is important for scientific inquiry.  Deduction can't take us everywhere.

Intuitions are part of the mental processes we employ when developing hypotheses, sure, but you seem to me to be using the term far too broadly.

 

Yes intuitions are part of the mental processes we employ when developing hypothesis, and also every time we make an inductive argument.  I'm not using the word too broadly, though.  Intuition is used everytime we immediately recognize something as true without the intervention of other ideas or deductive reasoning.  Basically any time we recognize a concept or idea as true but without the aid of deductive reasoning, we are using intuition.  Is that too broad?  You should tell that to all those philosophers who I got the concept of intuition from.

It is in a different context to deductive reasoning. Simple binary value logic is not applicable - induction addresses modes of investigation where deduction is not adequate by itself. Deduction is necessary but not sufficient, when we are deaing with data which is not absolutely verified or even verifiable.

 

Yes, because deduction only works if there is enough data present in the premises that is true that we can make the conclusion necessary.  This is rarely, in the real world, if ever possible.

Falsifiability cannot prove anything, only disprove it. In practice it is a matter of comparing how well a given theory explains the data and, if possible, makes predictions, compared to whatever alternative candidate theories are available - strict proof is not necessarily of concern for a theory to be useful and to advance the state of science. The important task is to devise experiments or observations which will distinguish as clearly as possible between candidate hypotheses, IOW think of situations where they make very different predictions.

 

As long as a theory adds to our ability to make useful predictions and points to fruitful areas of further investigations, it is reasonable to assume it has captured at least some significant aspects of reality, which is all any of our mental constructs can really hope to do. If it makes some prediction that actually seems to be wrong, if course that means there is something wrong with it, but it doesn't mean we completely throw it out - we don't throw out either QT or General Relativity because there are regimes where we haven't yet resolved conflicts between them.

Falsifiability is the only means we have by which there is even a possibility of definitively proving anything.  Yes falsifiability works by disproving things, but this is because science recognizes that the only thing it can do is disprove things.  Scientists make a hypothesis or theory and determine that a certain experiment would disprove part or all of the theory or hypothesis if it fails or produces results that were not predicted.  So they perform the experiment and if we get the predicted results the experiment has verified the theory or hypothesis.  If it could ever be possible to know somehow that we had performed all possible falsifying experiments and the theory or hypothesis came out verified in every one the theory would effectively be proven.  Basically the only thing preventing falsifiability from being able to prove anything absolutely true is the fact that it would be an argument from lack of imagination to claim that we had thought of and performed every possible falsifying experiment.

But that's irrelevant because falsification is necessary in conjunction with indctive arguments because it is the only way that we know of in which such an argument has any chance of being proven true.

And yes it is a matter of comparing how well a given theory makes predictions as opposed to another candidate theory...that's one way to falsify any given theory.  A theory whose predictions fit the observed data better has just passed a falsifying test, while the alternative candidate theory whose predictions didn't fit the data quite as well has just failed the falsifying test.

We haven't thrown out Newtonian Mechanics either because as imprecise as it is compared to einstein's theory of relativity it is still plenty precise enough for most people's every day use.

I haven't seen an example at all, which should be easy to provide considering this epidemic of fallacious reasoning in atheists. Perhaps I've missed the specific example provided -- what page is it on?

I don't know how you could have missed it.  My example argument is right in the OP.  It's also in another comment on the first page slightly modified.  I don't know how you can have trouble seperating the point about shifting the burden of proof from the specific example argument I gave.  I also fail to see how my example wasn't specific...I'm completely at a loss...

Oh I see, you want an example of people on this site doing it.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/yellow_number_five/science/470

The guy in that one was corrected but that's still one example.  It's not the only, I saw it happen a few times before I made this thread.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/11607

this one was the specific one that prompted this thread.

Look that's two.  I've seen it a few more times here at least, but I don't remember where.  Feel free to look for yourself, because seriously I do have better things to do than log the pages where I see bad arguments on this site.  No offense, and I'm sure everyone can agree, but I see a lot of them.

magilium wrote:

I haven't seen an example at all, which should be easy to provide considering this epidemic of fallacious reasoning in atheists. Perhaps I've missed the specific example provided -- what page is it on?

 

 

I don't know how you could have missed it.  My example argument is right in the OP.  It's also in another comment on the first page slightly modified.  I don't know how you can have trouble seperating the point about shifting the burden of proof from the specific example argument I gave.  I also fail to see how my example wasn't specific...I'm completely at a loss...

 

Oh I see, you want an example of people on this site doing it.

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/yellow_number_five/science/470

The guy in that one was corrected but that's still one example.  It's not the only, I saw it happen a few times before I made this thread.

 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/11607

this one was the specific one that prompted this thread.

 

Look that's two.  I've seen it a few more times here at least, but I don't remember where.  Feel free to look for yourself, because seriously I do have better things to do than log the pages where I see bad arguments on this site.  No offense, and I'm sure everyone can agree, but I see a lot of them.

 

Thanks. That's all I was asking for.

Those don't explicitly portray the example you gave, as they call the theistic position a positive one with an attached burden of proof, but I recognize the ambiguity in neglecting to state that the strong atheist position is also a positive one (meaning the theist has a burden of proof in being a theist, but additional burdens can be introduced to an argument by either side dependent on claims or even phrasing). So, meh. I think you're overstating the problem, but I don't have much more to say about it.

"The "beyond" -- why a beyond, if not as a means for besmirching this world?"
Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols

"Anxiety is freedom's actuality as the possibility of possibility."
Søren Kierkegaard

I wrote, "shit phuck .... stupid stupid stupid we are GOD ! 

[ Edit, Sorry for my frustration, I'm a lousy Buddhist etc. This thread has since grown to 164 of very interesting posts.

This thread reads like an imformative book. Just needs an editor. Thank you all so much, you are wonderful !

, stupid me ....  

BobSpence1 wrote:

My problem is that you seem to be using the term 'intuition' way too broadly to apply to almost all aspects of thought and analysis.

 

 

These should help explain how I am using intuition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_%28philosophy%29

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intuition

http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5f.htm

http://www.bloomu.edu/departments/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/intuition.pdf

http://www.unc.edu/~knobe/Sosa.pdf

Hopefully that helps clear things up.

Philosophical nonsense. Intuition is NOT an immediate grasping of TRUTH - it is a manifestation of non-conscious processes, that would be to varying dgrees instinctive, associative, and internalized insights based on previous experience. It does not automatically lead directly tp actual solidly esatablished knowledge, especially in conditions not previously experienced. That requires conscious application of logic and other analysis to observations to see if the 'intuitively' originated ideas actually work.

 

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Zeno's paradoxes are all based on misconceptions, utterly irrelevant to this discussion.

 

 

Zeno's race paradox is based on a proper understanding of the spatial assumption of euclidean geometry.

No - it is based on inadequate tools to deal with infinite sequences. If it is applied in the context of a finite granularity of spatial position, the 'paradox' generating problems of infinities disappear, and the argument falls apart completely, because you do reach an end of the time and distance increments, which if totalled up will be exactly what we normally observe, no paradox at all.

 

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

We don't and we don't need to

 

 

That's right, we don't, which means it could be wrong, so why do we accept it?

Because it ain't about proof, the acceptance is conditional, it's about relative estimates of probability, closeness of agreement with observation and experiment.

And no it's not because we don't need to know. We accept it because intuitively it strikes us as true...basically it strikes us as true immediately without the intervention of other ideas or deductive reasoning.

 

Proper science would NOT leave it at intuition, it needs to be properly analysed and quantifies as far as possible.

 

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Irrelevant, deductive arguments are not capable, by themselves, of establishing the sort of real-world probabilistic arguments that induction[ addresses.

 

 

This is why induction is important for scientific inquiry. Deduction can't take us everywhere.

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Intuitions are part of the mental processes we employ when developing hypotheses, sure, but you seem to me to be using the term far too broadly.

 

 

Yes intuitions are part of the mental processes we employ when developing hypothesis, and also every time we make an inductive argument. I'm not using the word too broadly, though. Intuition is used everytime we immediately recognize something as true without the intervention of other ideas or deductive reasoning

Which is bad science to accept an idea as true by intuition - the intuition merely suggests a strong possibility of a solution, a direction for rigorous analytic investigation.

. Basically any time we recognize a concept or idea as true but without the aid of deductive reasoning, we are using intuition. Is that too broad? You should tell that to all those philosophers who I got the concept of intuition from.

 

Yes it is - I would quite happily do just that.

 

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

It is in a different context to deductive reasoning. Simple binary value logic is not applicable - induction addresses modes of investigation where deduction is not adequate by itself. Deduction is necessary but not sufficient, when we are deaing with data which is not absolutely verified or even verifiable.

 

 

Yes, because deduction only works if there is enough data present in the premises that is true that we can make the conclusion necessary. This is rarely, in the real world, if ever possible.

It is not just a question of enough data, it is the quality of the data.

 

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Falsifiability cannot prove anything, only disprove it. In practice it is a matter of comparing how well a given theory explains the data and, if possible, makes predictions, compared to whatever alternative candidate theories are available - strict proof is not necessarily of concern for a theory to be useful and to advance the state of science. The important task is to devise experiments or observations which will distinguish as clearly as possible between candidate hypotheses, IOW think of situations where they make very different predictions.

 

As long as a theory adds to our ability to make useful predictions and points to fruitful areas of further investigations, it is reasonable to assume it has captured at least some significant aspects of reality, which is all any of our mental constructs can really hope to do. If it makes some prediction that actually seems to be wrong, if course that means there is something wrong with it, but it doesn't mean we completely throw it out - we don't throw out either QT or General Relativity because there are regimes where we haven't yet resolved conflicts between them.

 

Falsifiability is the only means we have by which there is even a possibility of definitively proving anything.

Again, this not what we are normally trying to do. I repeat .

Yes falsifiability works by disproving things, but this is because science recognizes that the only thing it can do is disprove things.

 

Right - we cannot prove theories, but we can in principle disprove them.

A better way to express it is that if a theory makes testable predictions, it it is both useful and 'falsifiable', if it doesn't, it is neither, and must remain no more than a hypothesis.

This will definitely be my last post on these side issues - I doubt we are going to reach agreement. 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

'Burden of Proof' does not have a consistent clear definition or usage. We tend to use it here in the sense that asserting the existence of some entity or 'thing' that is not manifestly obvious to most people, as are things like the sun or the earth itself, obliges the person asserting some  additional attribute of reality has the major share of the 'burden of proof'.

Someone categorically denying the claim may arguably have some 'burden of proof', but the balance still lies with the original claimant, IMHO. It is not an 'either/or' case, it is a matter of degree on either side.

This is they way we tend to use it here, and it is one way of using the term. It boils down to a difference of opinion. 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

Philosophical nonsense. Intuition is NOT an immediate grasping of TRUTH - it is a manifestation of non-conscious processes, that would be to varying dgrees instinctive, associative, and internalized insights based on previous experience. It does not automatically lead directly tp actual solidly esatablished knowledge, especially in conditions not previously experienced. That requires conscious application of logic and other analysis to observations to see if the 'intuitively' originated ideas actually work.

 

Who said intuition was an immediate grasp of actual truth?  It is a person's immediate recognition of something as true, whether or not that something actually is true.  People can and often do recognise false things as true, you know.  It's called fallibility and it's why induction is so generally unreliable.

No - it is based on inadequate tools to deal with infinite sequences. If it is applied in the context of a finite granularity of spatial position, the 'paradox' generating problems of infinities disappear, and the argument falls apart completely, because you do reach an end of the time and distance increments, which if totalled up will be exactly what we normally observe, no paradox at all.

 

Wrong again.  Zeno's Paradox was pointing out the problems witth considering the space between two points to be infinite.  The problems are present in any continuous spatial system.  This is why no continuous spatial systems speak of anything moving.  They instead use a system called translation to get things from one place to another.  The reason why we do in practice see things reaching an end of the time and distance increments is because in real life we can do it without translation because space and time are not continuous.  However the only way to do it in continuous space it to apply translational transformations on a time internal that is intentionally not continuous.

Because it ain't about proof, the acceptance is conditional, it's about relative estimates of probability, closeness of agreement with observation and experiment.

 

It's also mainly about interpretation and our ability to understand the data.  Maybe we're misinterpreting.  We all know the ancients did it when they believed that the motion we were seeing which resulted in day and night was not ours.  That didn't prevent them from calculating a surprisingly accurate calendar, though.

Proper science would NOT leave it at intuition, it needs to be properly analysed and quantifies as far as possible

 

Right, but intuition also tells us how to go about analyzing a given problem.  It assists us in our interpretation of the analysis.

Which is bad science to accept an idea as true by intuition - the intuition merely suggests a strong possibility of a solution, a direction for rigorous analytic investigation.

 

I've never tried to claim otherwise.  I was only pointing out that without intuition there'd be no deductive means to find that direction for rigorous analytic investigation so how would we figure anything out?

Yes it is - I would quite happily do just that.

 

Be sure when you do that you actually have some way to show them how it's too broad.  You've made that assertion here but have so far not made an attempt to demonstrate in what sense the application of the word is too broad.  It basically applies to any conclusions drawn without the intervention of other ideas or deductive reasoning.  How is that too broad?

It is not just a question of enough data, it is the quality of the data.

 

Enough data as in whatever amount of data of any given quality that is sufficient to justify an inductive conclusion.  You're being overly picky about words here.  Enough is synonymous with sufficient.  There could be a single very compelling reason and that would constitute enough data as it is a single bit of high quality data.  Now it just looks like you're just commenting to see your own words.

Again, this not what we are normally trying to do. I repeat .

 

What we are trying to do is be reasonably sure that our inductions are accurate.  We can only do this through falsification.  I was only pointing out that falsification is the only means by which we have any potential of proving anything, thus it is the only means, at least that we know of, by which we have any chance of being reasonably sure of the accuracy of any inductive arguments.

 

Right - we cannot prove theories, but we can in principle disprove them.

A better way to express it is that if a theory makes testable predictions, it it is both useful and 'falsifiable', if it doesn't, it is neither, and must remain no more than a hypothesis.

This will definitely be my last post on these side issues - I doubt we are going to reach agreement.

Which amounts to a nice summary of what I already said.  Thank you.

'Burden of Proof' does not have a consistent clear definition or usage. We tend to use it here in the sense that asserting the existence of some entity or 'thing' that is not manifestly obvious to most people, as are things like the sun or the earth itself, obliges the person asserting some  additional attribute of reality has the major share of the 'burden of proof'.

Someone categorically denying the claim may arguably have some 'burden of proof', but the balance still lies with the original claimant, IMHO. It is not an 'either/or' case, it is a matter of degree on either side.

This is they way we tend to use it here, and it is one way of using the term. It boils down to a difference of opinion.

Anyone who makes any claim of knowledge or any positive claim as in an assertion which leaves no room for uncertainty, has subjected themselves to the burden of proof.  I've seen people on this site argue that no matter what the atheist says the burden of proof is always on the theist, that's false.  Anyone who claims to know something is lying unless they have valid justification for that knowledge, and even then they could be wrong.

Knowledge is defined as true belief with justification.  It all hinges on that belief actually being true, though.  There are situations such as politics in which a person may hold a belief with justification and that belief still may or may not be true.  I call that an informed opinion as opposed to just an opinion which is basically equal to an assumption, a belief held without justification.  Gettier showed that while belief with justification is necessary for knowledge it is not always sufficient, as a person may hold a false belief with justification.  The problem comes down to we can't always know everything, and the information we don't have may be crucial for determining what is actually true.  This is yet another reason for the importance of falsification.

But in a debate or an argument where at least one side is trying to maintain their credibility, if that side claims to know anything or makes any assertions which leaves no room for uncertainty, that person has effectively made an epistemological statement and they can reasonably be asked to supply their justification.  That is the burden of proof.  Everyone potentially shares it equally.  This isn't limited to just the god existence question.  If, in the course of a debate, an atheist says we know that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, the other person can reasonably ask for the justification.  I can tell you from experience, though, that they'll reject it out of ignorance, they don't believe in the geologic column, they don't believe in the accuracy of radiometric dating, and they don't believe the hydrogen/helium ratio in the sun is an accurate way to determine the sun's age.  They'll argue foolish things like the rate of hydrogen to helium conversion was faster in the past, or some other such nonsense.  But I digress.  We can sufficiently prove that we do know that the earth is approximately 4 billion years old.  And they will then reject the proof with special pleading arguments they got from idiotic websites like answers in genesis or even Kent Hovind.  But then if they make the assertion that radiometric dating is wrong you can always ask them to prove it.  Or maybe first ask them if they are certain of that, then ask them to prove it.

But more I digress.  My point is that there are no degrees to which a person is subject to the burden of proof.  Only occassions.  A person who is always careful in his wording may never be subject, but anytime anyone makes a claim that they know something, anything at all, it becomes reasonable for the other side to ask for their justification.

Anyone who offers a conclusion—an objective proposition that is neither self-evident nor subjectively true—has the burden of providing the premises from which it would follow.

Whether the proposition is positive or negative is irrelevant. There's no obligation to accept a conclusion merely because it has a positive or negative nature. Thus, the person hearing the conclusion has the right to ask for the reasons to accept it. Thus, if you want the person to accept your conclusion you have a burden of providing the premises from which the conclusion would follow—you have the burden of proof. The positive or negative nature of a conclusion is irrelevant because the burden of proof still applies.

I find it difficult to believe this debate hasn't ended. The burden of proof is easy to understand. Simply stated, the burden of proof means, "If you want others to accept your conclusion, you have the burden of providing the reasons to do so."

Anyone who offers a conclusion—an objective proposition that is neither self-evident nor subjectively true—has the burden of providing the premises from which it would follow.

Whether the proposition is positive or negative is irrelevant. There's no obligation to accept a conclusion merely because it has a positive or negative nature. Thus, the person hearing the conclusion has the right to ask for the reasons to accept it. Thus, if you want the person to accept your conclusion you have a burden of providing the premises from which the conclusion would follow—you have the burden of proof. The positive or negative nature of a conclusion is irrelevant because the burden of proof still applies.

I find it difficult to believe this debate hasn't ended. The burden of proof is easy to understand. Simply stated, the burden of proof means, "If you want others to accept your conclusion, you have the burden of providing the reasons to do so."

I completely agree with absolutely every sentiment.  The only thing is I'd like to once again clarify my intended word sense for the word positive.  It wasn't intended to be contrasted with the word negative, it was intended to be contrasted with the word tentative.  I was basically using the word positive in the same sense as certain.  So basically a claim of knowledge or a claim that leaves no room for uncertainty.

I also am surprised that this debate is still going on, but it seems like people like to take it off into tangents.  And I like to argue so I'm willing to follow.

In other words, you were distinguishing between dogmatic and deductive conclusions—which leave no room for doubt, thus positive—and inductive conclusions—some doubt necessarily applies, thus negative. I agree with your argument, it applies to dogmatic and deductive conclusions. I would say it applies to inductive conclusions also. The only difference is that the word "proof" in "burden of proof" takes on a less stringent definition.