The burden of proof

CLAX1911 · Jan 16, 2015

tosca1 said:
:roll:

We're back to unicorns and fairies again?

prove they don't exist.

If that's the extent you can try to discredit the position of theists

No, I have no intention to discredit theists. And that is a rather clever way of dodging the argument. Blame some imaginary atheist for being mean. I'm a theist myself. I'm just not deluded.

I'm not even going to entertain that.

That's right run away.

You gotta be kidding me!

You have to ask that? :lol:

Do you require science to prove God exists? Perhaps you aren't a theist but wish desperately to be.

You do a lot of hemming and hawing when you are pushed against a wall.

Slyfox696 · Jan 16, 2015

Ockham said:
Actually it could indicate that while you state you've read something, you actually haven't.

I've directly replied to his comments. I've obviously read them.

I think it's funny how often you feel the need to respond to me and how often your responses are utterly absurd.

Religions are based on faith purposefully.

Obviously. But having faith isn't evidence, it's just a belief.

Here's a tip for you: There is no burden of proof on faith

But there is when discussing "science" as mentioned by the thread starter. And since we're speaking withing the concept of science, faith is not proof of anything. Apparently YOU haven't read what the threadstarter has posted.

- if one believes there is no proof required.

But science does require proof.

Those who do not believe always demand proof, which is in itself a logical fallacy since faith is not based on proof but on belief.

Nonsense. When we're asking for verifiable evidence, "science" as told in the OP, it is not a fallacy to require evidence to prove a hypothesis.

No offense, but this line is one of the more absurd things I've read on this forum.

Therefore you view on a burden of proof is itself illogical.

No, it's not. You probably ought to review the meaning of illogical, if you think requiring evidence to support a position is illogical.

Have a nice day.

Same to you.

marduc · Jan 16, 2015

tosca1 said:
Obviously I'm referring to those minority who holds that position. Although......hmmmm.....

So, what's your position?

Good luck finding them, the vast majority of self described athiests do not insist with absolute certainty that a god or higher power does not exist. The vast majority simply are not convinced that he does.

My position is that god is very very unlikely - and this is the same position that most self described athiests that I have been in contact with also hold. There is no reason to belive that he does exist, however it is impossible to prove that he does not (you cannot prove a negative). Even if I hold the position that the chances of a god existing are miniscule, this is NOT asserting that he does not exist, it is merely claiming that his existence is very unlikely.

Burden of proof is upon those making the positive claim.. demonstrate that he does exist. At the very least if you want this argument, specifically target the small subset of atheists that would assert god does not exist instead of falsely assigning a position that few actually hold upon the entirety of the group. Ideally broaden your definition so as to account for the position that many self described atheists really hold instead of insisting that we hold a position that we do not.

So unless you can refine your stance and take account that most athiests do not make the assertion you insist that they are, you are flailing away at one giant straw man. You decided what we assert (inaccurately) and then argued against this inaccurate premise.

OrphanSlug · Jan 16, 2015

tosca1 said:
That's what I meant. I beg to disagree....and the OP explained why.

On the contrary there are evidences for the existence of God. Some have been stated.
That anyone would refuse to acknowledge them doesn't change that fact.

So, no. Theists and atheists are definitely not on the same boat.

The "evidences" would not pass scientific process, the standard you are asking of atheists. That is a key point. Therefor there is no real evidence God does or does not exist. Because of that all we are talking about is which system of belief has more likelihood of being right, and still neither of which would be a function of science proving that one way or the other. All you have is an argument you claim you are right in based upon what you believe. Again, system of belief does not equate to evidence in scientific standards or process, and as such theists and atheists are definitely two sides of the same coin. Each claiming they are right and within the confines of their respective systems of belief.

Ockham · Jan 16, 2015

Slyfox696 said:
I've directly replied to his comments. I've obviously read them.

I think it's funny how often you feel the need to respond to me and how often your responses are utterly absurd.

I think it's funny how you assume you understand what was posted. It's obvious you don't.

Slyfox696 said:
Obviously. But having faith isn't evidence, it's just a belief.

Having faith doesn't require evidence - who requires evidence? You want people to prove to you they have faith? Funny from someone who claims they rely on logic.

Slyfox696 said:
But there is when discussing "science" as mentioned by the thread starter. And since we're speaking withing the concept of science, faith is not proof of anything. Apparently YOU haven't read what the threadstarter has posted.

No there is not.... science cannot prove faith and faith cannot justify science. The classic pit fall of trying to discuss science and faith which goes exactly no where.

Slyfox696 said:
But science does require proof.

Given that faith is a belief system, requiring faith to provide a burden of proof to justify itself is looney.

Slyfox696 said:
Nonsense. When we're asking for verifiable evidence, "science" as told in the OP, it is not a fallacy to require evidence to prove a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is not proof, nor evidence. Any hypothesis that says faith must meet a burden of proof is as I already stated, looney.

Slyfox696 said:
No offense, but that's one of the more absurd things I've read on this forum.

S'okay. Individuals ridicule what they do not understand.

Slyfox696 said:
No, it's not. You probably ought to review the meaning of illogical, if you think requiring evidence to support a position is illogical.
Same to you.

Give me a legitimate scientist who can measure a religious faith. You don't mix science and faith and expect a good outcome. Arguing such things is a waste of time - which I assume is why you're posting on this subject. I however, have said my peace and will let you or whomever else wants to waste their life demanding scientific evidence of religious faith to have fun getting exactly nowhere after it's all said and done. Enjoy!

Slyfox696 · Jan 16, 2015

Ockham said:
I think it's funny how you assume you understand what was posted. It's obvious you don't.

I understand very clearly what he/she posted. It doesn't change the fact it's a massive logical fallacy (multiple fallacies, actually).

Having faith doesn't require evidence

No one said it did. But if you're trying to appeal to science, then you cannot claim your position is right without using concrete evidence. Again, it would help if you knew what was being discussed in this thread.

You want people to prove to you they have faith?

I don't care what you or anyone else believes. But I do have an issue with the idea that because something cannot be disproven, it is, by default, proven. That's not logical.

Funny from someone who claims they rely on logic.

I do. I also rely on reality, and it would be nice if others in this thread would as well.

You keep talking about how faith doesn't have to be proven. I agree, that's what the word faith means. But, however, in this discussion we're using "science" to try and prove or disprove the existence of God. Using "science", there is absolutely no way to prove God, so asking someone to disprove that which, by the concept of science, doesn't exist is impossible. No one can disprove someone which doesn't exist. Thus, it is on those who belief in God to prove God exists, if we're using the standards set forth by the opening poster.

Do you get it yet? Because I can't tell if you just don't understand what's going on in this thread or if you're intentionally being combative by saying ridiculous things that have no relation to what is being discussed in this thread. I'm hoping it's the former, but your posting history suggests the latter.

CLAX1911 · Jan 16, 2015

OrphanSlug said:
The "evidences" would not pass scientific process, the standard you are asking of atheists. That is a key point. Therefor there is no real evidence God does or does not exist. Because of that all we are talking about is which system of belief has more likelihood of being right, and still neither of which would be a function of science proving that one way or the other. All you have is an argument you claim you are right in based upon what you believe. Again, system of belief does not equate to evidence in scientific standards or process, and as such theists and atheists are definitely two sides of the same coin. Each claiming they are right and within the confines of their respective systems of belief.

Here is an interesting video regarding this subject an I must say it was a very unbiased approach.

It's 8:40 long. So not bad.

Philosophy: Reason And Faith: http://youtu.be/MTPHXNMi9tA

CLAX1911 · Jan 16, 2015

Ockham said:
I think it's funny how you assume you understand what was posted. It's obvious you don't.

Having faith doesn't require evidence - who requires evidence? You want people to prove to you they have faith? Funny from someone who claims they rely on logic.

No there is not.... science cannot prove faith and faith cannot justify science. The classic pit fall of trying to discuss science and faith which goes exactly no where.

Given that faith is a belief system, requiring faith to provide a burden of proof to justify itself is looney.

A hypothesis is not proof, nor evidence. Any hypothesis that says faith must meet a burden of proof is as I already stated, looney.

S'okay. Individuals ridicule what they do not understand.

Give me a legitimate scientist who can measure a religious faith. You don't mix science and faith and expect a good outcome. Arguing such things is a waste of time - which I assume is why you're posting on this subject. I however, have said my peace and will let you or whomever else wants to waste their life demanding scientific evidence of religious faith to have fun getting exactly nowhere after it's all said and done. Enjoy!

You have to have some evidence to trust in God. It's not completely based on faith. Either your religion says so, or some experience you had that can't readily our reasonably be explained, or the otherwise random notion of existence seems unreal to you.

If it were completely based in faith in the unknown it wouldn't be the slightest bit reasonable.

To put it another way...

It is reasonable to believe that a life vest will keep me afloat even though there is a chance that it won't. It however is unreasonable to believe that a frying pan would make you eggs on its own no matter how much trust or faith you placed in it.

You believe God is there thus you trust him or have faith in him.

joG · Jan 16, 2015

RAMOSS said:
Science never said anything at all, what so ever. It is a methodology that allows people to come to conclusions. On the other hand, the positions of most atheists is 'since there is no tangible evidence for the existence of any deity, I will reframe from believing in one until such evidence is forthcoming'. That is entirely rational. As for right, there is no evidence it is wrong.

That is the old rag about Atheist vs Agnostic ie between believing there is no God and admitting to not knowing. A lot of people here use the word interchangeably.

Ockham · Jan 16, 2015

Slyfox696 said:
You keep talking about how faith doesn't have to be proven. I agree, that's what the word faith means.

Then why do you keep going on?

Ockham · Jan 16, 2015

CLAX1911 said:
You have to have some evidence to trust in God. It's not completely based on faith. Either your religion says so, or some experience you had that can't readily our reasonably be explained, or the otherwise random notion of existence seems unreal to you.

No - no evidence. It is completely based on faith...

CLAX1911 said:
If it were completely based in faith in the unknown it wouldn't be the slightest bit reasonable.

Those who believe base their faith on their books of wisdom - those books provide all sorts of things as to the "unknown".

CLAX1911 said:
To put it another way...

It is reasonable to believe that a life vest will keep me afloat even though there is a chance that it won't. It however is unreasonable to believe that a frying pan would make you eggs on its own no matter how much trust or faith you placed in it.

You believe God is there thus you trust him or have faith in him.

Belief isn't based on a physical action like believing a frying pan will make you eggs on it's own. THAT would be a miracle, not faith.

CLAX1911 · Jan 16, 2015

Ockham said:
No - no evidence. It is completely based on faith...

This statement contradicts the one you posted just under it.

Those who believe base their faith on their books of wisdom - those books provide all sorts of things as to the "unknown".

Books and wisdom are evidence.

Belief isn't based on a physical action like believing a frying pan will make you eggs on it's own. THAT would be a miracle, not faith.

Faith is trust. And trust in something requires it to have some credibility. People have faith in horoscopes. People have faith in severed rodent feet. Are you saying your God is no greater than a lucky rabbit's foot?

Paschendale · Jan 16, 2015

If the best argument you have for your faith is that rational and intelligent people can't disprove a myth that is specifically tailored so as not to be falsifiable... then you should probably look inward and examine why you hold that faith.

The only real comment I have towards the OP is that there are no scientific theories or evidence that support the existence of any supernatural creatures, including gods. The OP's assertion to the contrary is wrong in every regard.

CLAX1911 · Jan 16, 2015

Ockham said:
Then why do you keep going on?

Faith can't exist without some sort of evidence.

What do you have faith in if there is no evidence?

If course evidence isn't proof, it doesn't even have to be conclusive but there has to be something telling you that you can put faith in something otherwise there would be no religions.

CLAX1911 · Jan 16, 2015

Paschendale said:
If the best argument you have for your faith is that rational and intelligent people can't disprove a myth that is specifically tailored so as not to be falsifiable... then you should probably look inward and examine why you hold that faith.

The only real comment I have towards the OP is that there are no scientific theories or evidence that support the existence of any supernatural creatures, including gods. The OP's assertion to the contrary is wrong in every regard.

I think your argument is about the same as hers. Sure there is evidence. There are books traditions timples and shrines. That's all evidence that there is a God. It's just not conclusive

There is nothing wrong with you wanting conclusive evidence to accept there is a God. But to many people religion seems to be a waste of time.

But you don't have conclusive evidence that you are going to survive your commute to work. You take a chance. That is what believers do. There really isn't anything to lose by believing.

Ockham · Jan 16, 2015

CLAX1911 said:
This statement contradicts the one you posted just under it.

Books and wisdom are evidence.

Why would they be? If someone doesn't believe in the faith, why would they believe in the book of the faith?

CLAX1911 said:
Faith is trust. And trust in something requires it to have some credibility.

No faith is not trust - faith is belief. That belief stems from something spiritual - not evidence. It's a feeling. For example, show me evidence that "love" exists.... people who are in love "trust" each other based on what?

God doesn't do stuff for me, he's not taking care of my kids or actively protecting my personal possessions. When you hear people say they are putting trust in the Lord, they are asking for guidance which could come from the book, from someone else they confide in, from some random thing that seemingly happens that helps a person work through a problem. They are saying they have faith that the problem will have a positive result for them.

CLAX1911 said:
People have faith in horoscopes. People have faith in severed rodent feet. Are you saying your God is no greater than a lucky rabbit's foot?

I cannot help what people believe or do not believe - that is irrelevant.

Slyfox696 · Jan 16, 2015

Ockham said:
Then why do you keep going on?

Because we're not talking about faith, we're talking about science. Again, pay attention to the thread in which you're posting.

CLAX1911 said:
I think your argument is about the same as hers. Sure there is evidence. There are books traditions timples and shrines. That's all evidence that there is a God. It's just not conclusive

Small note, that really isn't evidence, that's an example of begging the question.

CLAX1911 · Jan 16, 2015

Ockham said:
Why would they be? If someone doesn't believe in the faith, why would they believe in the book of the faith?

Probably because the book isn't conclusive.

No faith is not trust - faith is belief.[/QUOTE]Belief is trust that something is true or exists.

That belief stems from something spiritual - not evidence. It's a feeling.

Feelings are evidence. Something spiritual is evidence.

For example, show me evidence that "love" exists....

Evidence or proof? I feel live, that's enough to tell me it exists. Thus it's evidence though it may not be solid proof. It's evidence.

people who are in love "trust" each other based on what?

Based on a pattern of trustworthy behavior. But not all people who are in love trust each other. Trust isn't a product of love. I can love a person that steals from me. That doesn't mean I trust them.

God doesn't do stuff for me, he's not taking care of my kids or actively protecting my personal possessions.

Where did you come up with the idea that God exists?

When you hear people say they are putting trust in the Lord, they are asking for guidance which could come from the book, from someone else they confide in, from some random thing that seemingly happens that helps a person work through a problem.

Right, and if they received absolutely no hidden they probably wouldn't trust that "god" would they?

They are saying they have faith that the problem will have a positive result for them.

Based on what?

I cannot help what people believe or do not believe - that is irrelevant.

This has nothing to do with what I said.

I said you're equating your God to a rabbit's foot. Actually you are saying it's less. Because a person that believes his rabbit's foot is lucky would have had that rabbit's foot with him when something fortuitous Occurred. Thus giving him evidence that his rabbit's foot is lucky.

CLAX1911 · Jan 16, 2015

Slyfox696 said:
Small note, that really isn't evidence, that's an example of begging the question.

Please elaborate.

Slyfox696 · Jan 16, 2015

CLAX1911 said:
Please elaborate.

Books, traditions, temples and shrines can only be evidence of the existence of a divine being if you assume there's a divine being to be worshiped with books, traditions, temples and shrines. As these objects were all made with the sole intent of honoring a divine being, they cannot be seen as evidence for a divine being, unless you accept the idea of a divine being. Otherwise, those things are just pieces of paper and leather and buildings.

Thus why it would qualify as the logical fallacy of begging the question.

CLAX1911 · Jan 16, 2015

Slyfox696 said:
Books, traditions, temples and shrines can only be evidence of the existence of a divine being if you assume there's a divine being to be worshiped with books, traditions, temples and shrines. As these objects were all made with the sole intent of honoring a divine being, they cannot be seen as evidence for a divine being, unless you accept the idea of a divine being. Otherwise, those things are just pieces of paper and leather and buildings.

There absolutely is a devine entity being worshipped. Whether or not that entity exists is unproven. So it's still evidence.

Thus why it would qualify as the logical fallacy of begging the question.

My statement was not fallacious. And I'll explain why with a question.

Who do the Christians worship?

Ockham · Jan 16, 2015

Slyfox696 said:
Because we're not talking about faith, we're talking about science. Again, pay attention to the thread in which you're posting.

I am clearly paying attention - science and faith do not mix. I was hoping that got through but apparently it didn't.

Slyfox696 · Jan 16, 2015

Ockham said:
I am clearly paying attention - science and faith do not mix. I was hoping that got through but apparently it didn't.

You are not paying attention. The entire premise of this thread was the scientific evidence of God existing or not existing. It's in the opening post.

CLAX1911 said:
There absolutely is a devine entity being worshipped. Whether or not that entity exists is unproven. So it's still evidence.

It's evidence that people believe in a god, it's not evidence a god exists. There's a big difference there.

My statement was not fallacious.

It was. In order for your statement to be true, you have to assume the premise to be true. Otherwise, books and buildings are only evidence that people believe in a divine being. It would not be evidence of a divine being.

And I'll explain why with a question.

Who do the Christians worship?

It's not really a simple answer, but theoretically the simple answer is God and his half man, half divine (or so they believe) son Jesus.

Paschendale · Jan 16, 2015

CLAX1911 said:
I think your argument is about the same as hers. Sure there is evidence. There are books traditions timples and shrines. That's all evidence that there is a God. It's just not conclusive

No, that's evidence that people believe in gods, not in the existence of those gods outside of the believers' imaginations.

CLAX1911 · Jan 16, 2015

Paschendale said:
No, that's evidence that people believe in gods, not in the existence of those gods outside of the believers' imaginations.

All you are doing is pointing out lack of evidence that God exists and saying that it's prove that it doesn't exist.

It's an assumption either way.

The burden of proof

Supreme knower of all

don't panic

A sinister place...

Noblesse oblige

Supreme knower of all

Supreme knower of all

Noblesse oblige

Noblesse oblige

Supreme knower of all

Uncanny

Supreme knower of all

Supreme knower of all

Noblesse oblige

Supreme knower of all

Supreme knower of all

Supreme knower of all

Noblesse oblige

Uncanny

Supreme knower of all