Burden of Proof

[4gold]

An atheist friend of mine and I were having an argument over who has the burden of proof. His position is that atheists do not have the burden of proof, since they cannot prove a negative. My position is that agnosticism is the only religious position that does not have the burden of proof, because they are the only ones that say that the evidence does not impel them in one direction or the other. I say that atheists and Christians both have the burden of proof.

Who wins this argument?

[BeHereNow]

duke We know creating energy from nothing is a requirement of god.

I am wonder how you know this, since you know there is no god.
Once again, you must assume, for the sake of argument that there is a god.
Let us assume the Judeo-Christian god, that captures your fancy so often.

Such a god is omnipotent, I think you will agree, that meaning “all powerful”. You may choose another phrase if you choose, but the meaning will be the same. If I am incorrect, please tell me.
I can easily think to myself, as noted scientists have, that there might be two (more actually) simultaneous universes, what we might call parallel universes.

If Neil Turok from Cambridge, Burt Ovrut from the University of Pennsylvania and Paul Steinhardt from Princeton are correct, two of these might havecollided, and “BANG”, as they say. Do you have some evidence, some itty bitty evidence, some reasoning that you might share, that shows this occurrence was not caused by god, or some convincing evidence that these scientists are incorrect in their beliefs?

Do you see the fallacy of your reasoning?

[daedalus 2.0]

Duke We know having intelligence without a brain and without a gradual forming process is a requirement of god.

1. We have no evidence that intelligence can be obtained without a brain. If this is a requirement of God, then Theists have a problem.
2. A brainless intelligence is also a requirement of ghosts, demons, spirits, souls, etc. Have we discovered any of them, or been able to distinguish them from a god? (That is, a brainless Int is a necessary condition for a God, but a brainless Int is not indication of a god).

[daedalus 2.0]

duke We know creating energy from nothing is a requirement of god.

1. This may be a Necessary condition of a God, but it not Necessary for a God to create energy. The Wave Function of the Universe suggests that this very Universe began with no God.
2. If God created the energy, is God not energy of some sort too? It sounds like, again, the arbitrary stopping point of the Reductio ad absurdum. YOu have jusy declared that God is the place all these things stop at, yet there is no evidence or logical reason. You have simply created a tautology in that any beginning = god.

You are defining a god into existence. Not describing something we have discovered.

[Rathpig]

You are defining a god into existence. Not describing something we have discovered.

And that is the fallacy of the "Prime Mover" theology. It postulates an "uncaused cause" while declaring everything requires a "cause". This thesis is not only logically amiss, but it is basically an assumption of emotions rather than evidence.


Claiming that a more logical and much more simple thesis is equally as unknown or unknowable does not lend credibility to filling the gap with any form of god.

[BeHereNow]

Well, some odd posts going on here.

Duke makes some illogical, irrational claims, and I point this out to him, asking him if he sees the errors of his ways and receive silence.

Now two of his compatriots, do not deny his irrationality, and yet seem to want to support his beliefs in some other fashion. I have to wonder if they support his irrationality, or clearly see what I see, but do not want to admit to it. So kind of then to not want to hurt their friend’s feelings. Such emotions are heart warming.

They appear to have a conversation among themselves, yet it seems to be addressed to me, and yet, I see no indication of that. Perhaps they fear they will hurt my feelings as well. So kind of them.

daedalus 2.0 Makes the timid comment ”The Wave. . . . suggests that. . . “.
I am wondering, is this the stuff of science, “suggestions”.

Is this the basis of the Duke’s bold statement “I know there is no god.”?
Such a bold statement from a suggestion?
Surely the science of young bright minds is based on more than suggestions. Suggestions abound, and if evidence is added to them, we may even have a theory. I trust when they accumulate such evidence and can present a theory, we might be able to discuss it.

Daedalus 2.0 continues “If God created the energy…”, I believe we have another suggestion. I wonder what is the source of this suggestion. I don’t recall making such a suggestion, but then, none of these comments have been addressed to me.
In full he says “If God created the energy(ed: then) is God not energy of some sort too?”

I do not understand how one follows from the other.
Let me see if I can understand it by analogy, one of those imperfect analogies.
(BHN muses): “If a bomb creates energy, is not the bomb energy? Well no, simply because a bomb creates energy, does not mean it is energy. This ‘If…then…’ statement of Mr D does not seem valid.”
In the case of the bomb, there is merely potential energy, unless we want to equate material with energy, and say they are the same, which does not sit well with me. I of course do not mean to suggest that god is material, or potential energy, but that analogy does help me see Mr D’s reasoning is weak at best. It does not make sense to me. Perhaps in his discussions with his friends they will bring this up, one of them may point this out to him.

daedalus 2.0 You are defining a god into existence. Not describing something we have discovered.

Am I to suppose from this that that which is not discovered by mankind, does not exist? What a strange concept.
Am I to suppose that if I am aware of something, and describe it to my friends, and they have not discovered it, it does not exist? Another strange thought.
Or that if I cannot prove it to them, it does not exist? Equally strange. My poor grandson no longer exists because I can provide no acceptable proof to my friends. He will be disappointed. I will have to find out what it is they will accept, so that he can exist (after all, his birthday will be coming, and it will disappoint his mother greatly if he does not exist).

Existence of reality depends on my friends accepting the same reality that is clear to me, and if they do not, it does not exist. These are strange ideas. Maybe that rye bread was moldy after all.

Rathpig And that is the fallacy of the "Prime Mover" theology. It postulates an "uncaused cause" while declaring everything requires a "cause". This thesis is not only logically amiss, but it is basically an assumption of emotions rather than evidence.

Yes, that theology stuff can be confusing, especially to those like myself who do not accept them. Very difficult to understand them. Of course nothing needs to be ‘caused’. All that exists could have existed forever. Not in their present form of course. My grandson (if I can only prove his existence to my friends), is made of the stars, he has existed forever, just not in this form. Change is constant, continuous, and forever. In order for there to be no change, there would have to be no existence, and that is rubbish. Of course there is existence, and of course all that exists is in constant change. Gosh, what if I can not prove that to my friends. Oh well, se la vie.
I will have to provide evidence.

There’s that problem again. My friends have all kinds of ideas of what constitutes evidence. They disagree with each other all of the time.
I have one friend, I declare, if I hit him on the head with a cast iron skillet, he would say that his head does not exist. So many different ideas of what is evidence. Just no way to please everyone all of the time.


Oh how I envy my atheist friends. They have nothing to prove. They can believe whatever they choose, and need offer no convincing evidence. For them the absence of evidence is not only convincing evidence, but proof. If I cannot provide the proper documentation that they accept, my poor grandson does not exist.
If I show them pictures, they will say it is someone else’s grandson. On and on it goes. I have lots of friends who say they have seen my grandson, but my atheist friends do not accept such evidence.

For them there is only one acceptable proof that my grandson (or my god) exists.

They must say it is true, and then it is true. Nothing else is convincing.

Why do I bother (rhetorical).

[daedalus 2.0]

daedalus 2.0 Makes the timid comment ”The Wave. . . . suggests that. . . “.
I am wondering, is this the stuff of science, “suggestions”.

Is this the basis of the Duke’s bold statement “I know there is no god.”?
Such a bold statement from a suggestion?
Surely the science of young bright minds is based on more than suggestions. Suggestions abound, and if evidence is added to them, we may even have a theory. I trust when they accumulate such evidence and can present a theory, we might be able to discuss it.

While it may seem a timid comment, and may be, it is the language of science. Science doesn't sweep in (as religion does) and make declarations.

While I may be more bold in other scientific discoveries (some we all accept, perhaps), I am careful to qualify my statements when referencing an aspect of science that has not been supported to the same degree as, say, Evolution, or Newtonian Physics.

I find it prudent, because I don't wish to be dogmatic and take it on Faith. I may be wrong (about my interpretation of the science) or the science may be wrong, hence, I use the qualifier "suggests".

I can guarantee that few people, on this forum or otherwise, understand the physics of the Big Bang well enough to declare absolutes about the nature of god. All we have are suggestions.

Daedalus 2.0 continues “If God created the energy…”, I believe we have another suggestion. I wonder what is the source of this suggestion. I don’t recall making such a suggestion, but then, none of these comments have been addressed to me.
In full he says “If God created the energy(ed: then) is God not energy of some sort too?”

I do not understand how one follows from the other.
Let me see if I can understand it by analogy, one of those imperfect analogies.
(BHN muses): “If a bomb creates energy, is not the bomb energy? Well no, simply because a bomb creates energy, does not mean it is energy. This ‘If…then…’ statement of Mr D does not seem valid.”
In the case of the bomb, there is merely potential energy, unless we want to equate material with energy, and say they are the same, which does not sit well with me. I of course do not mean to suggest that god is material, or potential energy, but that analogy does help me see Mr D’s reasoning is weak at best. It does not make sense to me. Perhaps in his discussions with his friends they will bring this up, one of them may point this out to him.

Perhaps I should have been more specific. In order to create energy, you must employ energy somehow.
A bomb is potential energy, and a bomb doesn't make itself - it needs energy to be created.

Since I am addressing the idea that 'God created energy': how did he do this? Is there any real world analog that you can offer? The act of "creation", I understand, is an act that requires energy.

The closest I can offer is the Wave Function, which is certainly NOT a god; an intelligent being. And the Wave Function actually exists within a permanent energy field (if I understand it correctly). That is, energy is a Brute Force Necessary fact of Nature. Or "seems" to be.

So, it seems that there is an assertion in your premise that states that God can be something that can make energy, but isn't energy, seems illogical. (Your bomb analogy actually supports my case, as you pointed out: potential energy, is still energy. Especially considering the energy needed to create it.)

Well, we have two competing claims. I wonder if there is a way to narrow them down to the most likely scenario? I have a system we could use. Shall we?


BTW, in order to create energy, you would be overturning the Law of the Conservation of Energy. One of the Pillars of science. It would be a tough row to hoe.

daedalus 2.0 You are defining a god into existence. Not describing something we have discovered.

Am I to suppose from this that that which is not discovered by mankind, does not exist? What a strange concept.
Am I to suppose that if I am aware of something, and describe it to my friends, and they have not discovered it, it does not exist? Another strange thought.
Or that if I cannot prove it to them, it does not exist? Equally strange. My poor grandson no longer exists because I can provide no acceptable proof to my friends. He will be disappointed. I will have to find out what it is they will accept, so that he can exist (after all, his birthday will be coming, and it will disappoint his mother greatly if he does not exist).

Existence of reality depends on my friends accepting the same reality that is clear to me, and if they do not, it does not exist. These are strange ideas. Maybe that rye bread was moldy after all.

It's not my argument, but I see why you wish it to be. However, I'd be careful. The "We can't see because we have eyes" is a funny argument to make.

I know you didn't say this exactly, but this is where your argument leads (I've been down this road before).

I don't claim that we have to know something before it exists.<<<<<
I am saying that in order to know X exists, you must know what X requires for its existence.

Also, that you must know that Phenomena, P, is a direct result of X's action (thus strongly making a case that X exists)

To attribute a phenomena to something is not the same as describing the phenomena. Also, to attribute a phenomena to something doesn't mean you have attributed it correctly.

We know lighting exists, but it isn't Thor striking Mjolnir. In order to attribute it to Thor, you'd have to know that lighting is an actual (read: real/true) phenomena of Thor striking his hammer.

It's not enough to know that Thor exists (say he did), but you'd have to know it was Caused by what you say it is Caused by.


It's not enough to know Tom Brady exists, but that his action result in the scoreboard changing every time he throws a TD.

The problem that Theists have is that they use TD's and Lightning, so to speak (observable phenomena), as evidence for God.

For example, Tom Brady exists (I think we all accept that), but the if the scoreboard changes, it may not be because Tom threw a TD. Mahroney may have run one in, Hobbes could have run in a INT, or a backup QB could be throwing the ball, etc.

In order to establish that God created the BB, you must rule out the other more plausible reasons. Since the term "god" is meaningless, there is little a theist can do to show this, since you can't say "God made the score change" without showing that God can actually change scores: that every time the score changes (or even sometimes) it is a Necessary Condition that God did it.

To claim, say, that THE definition of God is "he created the universe", then follow by saying "the universe was created, therefore God exists" is a non sequiter. You haven't shown that ONLY God can create a universe. And if two different things can create a universe, then the term god becomes meaningless. You aren't talking about the existence of a god, just the existence of the beginning of the universe, but calling both "God".

Again, this may not have been exactly what you said, but it is addressing the larger issue.




edit: BTW, 4Gold, to ask which has the burden of proof is perhaps a little much.

Proof is problematic in Philosophy. The Theist, as the originator of the claim, must provide a reason for his (or her) account.

However, the only rebuttal to an unverifiable claim is another argument that may explain things better.

It seems to me, and many here may disagree, that the most sensible position is the one of "Inference to the Best Explanation".

To steal from my Brady/TD analogy. If one sees the scoreboard change, they are welcome to say "Allah did it". However, I may counter with "well, it was only 3 points, which means it was a kick and the kicker on the team is named Gostkowski, not Allah."

So, the person can continue to assert that "Allah did it" (which is philosophically bad, but dogmatically good), or they can refine their position ("Well, Allah filled the ball with his Spirit so it would fly straight").

Then, the response would be to that particular claim.

"Well, perhaps, but maybe if we look at the physics, we can see we need no other explanation then the kicker kicked the ball correctly in order to achieve that result. Perhaps, if you can describe Allah's Spirit, we can see if it fits with the explanation."

Obviously, this is somewhat simplisitic, but not so much from the Theist p.o.v. This is basically what they claim, but add a lot of pretty words to the same quality argument. Perhaps if the arguments were stronger, we would all believe in one God?

[BeHereNow]

daedalus 2.0 Science doesn't sweep in (as religion does) and make declarations.

When science has sufficient evidence, it makes declarations, surely we can agree on that. When it has insufficient evidence, it makes suggestions, hunches, intuitions, educated guesses. Surely we can agree on that.
The discussion is about evidence and truth. Suggestions contain little or no evidence, and a great deal of subjective evaluation. When you say a particular theory suggests there may be no god, we have a believed to be true concept, that subjectively hints something may be true. This type of scientific foundation is speculative, and although speculation had a wonderful part to play in science, speculation is just that. I might remind you that speculation said the sun, not the earth, was the center of the universe. I would guess that speculation had more evidence than your speculation, even though it was false.

Since I am addressing the idea that 'God created energy': how did he do this? Is there any real world analog that you can offer? The act of "creation", I understand, is an act that requires energy.

No, god does not have to create the energy. He just has to put it to use. My grandson can create a clay handprint, he is no god I assure you. He takes some materials and changes their form. This is an act of creation, not biblical creation, but I do not argue for biblical creation, and many Christians do not argue for a literal biblical creation.

” So, it seems that there is an assertion in your premise that states that God can be something that can make energy, but isn't energy, seems illogical.”

Did you read where I wrote: ” Of course nothing needs to be ‘caused’. All that exists could have existed forever. Not in their present form of course. My grandson (if I can only prove his existence to my friends), is made of the stars, he has existed forever, just not in this form. Change is constant, continuous, and forever. In order for there to be no change, there would have to be no existence, and that is rubbish. Of course there is existence, and of course all that exists is in constant change. ??
Does this contradict some other statement I made?
If it does, please show it.
If it does not, your point is invalid.

BTW, in order to create energy, you would be overturning the Law of the Conservation of Energy. One of the Pillars of science. It would be a tough row to hoe.

When we consider the scientific theory (to my knowledge a theory, at least more evidence than a suggestion), of multiple universes, the idea of “creating energy” becomes extremely fuzzy. Transposing energy seems more appropriate, and within accepted scientific beliefs.

The "We can't see because we have eyes" is a funny argument to make.

That is the discussion in a nutshell. You talk as though you assume science currently has all of the tools it needs to make factual declarations about all existence, while admitting many areas are in the suggestion stage. This seems like an inconsistency to me. Science is and always will be in a growth stage. That is one of it’s strengths. It cannot see when it does not have the proper eyes (tools), and there are many tools yet to be discovered, and many truths those tools will declare.

To claim, say, that THE definition of God is "he created the universe", then follow by saying "the universe was created, therefore God exists" is a non sequiter. You haven't shown that ONLY God can create a universe. And if two different things can create a universe, then the term god becomes meaningless. You aren't talking about the existence of a god, just the existence of the beginning of the universe, but calling both "God".

I do not use this argument. The Deist god differs greatly from the god of religions. Atheists and Christians both say that the concept of a Deist god is meaningless, because neither accepts it. It is a competing model of the cosmos, it is the beliefs of men like Thomas Jefferson. It is only meaningless if you want it to be. Although TJ never used the word intuit (or its forms), he did not believe in miracles and other evidence that the Christians accept. He pointed to no evidence for the concept of god, he did not try to make any reasonable (as in logic) argument for god, he just accepted it intuitively.

edit: BTW, 4Gold, to ask which has the burden of proof is perhaps a little much.

Proof is problematic in Philosophy. The Theist, as the originator of the claim, must provide a reason for his (or her) account.

I would agree that ‘proof” in the truest sense is an overstatement, and convincing evidence would be more accurate.

However, the only rebuttal to an unverifiable claim is another argument that may explain things better.

A statement hinging on loaded terms, specifically unverifiable and better. The meanings of these terms will depend on the user's perspective.
As has already been stated, it is one thing to say “We have no scientific convincing evidence there is a god”, and quite another to say ”We have convincing scientific evidence there is no god”.

Reasonably speaking, the latter statement requires a burden of convincing scientific evidence, since that claim is contained in the assertion, and I say it does not exist.

You waffle between saying you should not have to show such evidence exists, and that there are suggestions, but not convincing evidence.
Your reasoning, based on suppositions, yield one result, others disagree.

[daedalus 2.0]

What is odd is that you support your view by appealing to "intuition", but then charge that I am being vague in my position.

Speculation is fine: "to believe especially on uncertain or tentative grounds".It has a built in suggestion that it may not be true. Scientists speculated on the existence of Dark Matter.

Are you saying that you are speculating on Gods existence, or that you intuitively suspect god exists. Perhaps a difference without a distinction. Either way, I'd have to ask where you got the idea of a God in the first place, whereas the reason scientists suspect Dark Matter (for example) is because of sound science that has been verified. 9Dark Matter was suspected because the Red Shift was confirmed, which means the universe is expanding, which means there must be a certain amount of Mass in the universe that has been undetected so far.)

The difference between God and DM is that DM is part of this universe and can theoretically be verified.


The Inference to the Best Explanation is the idea I am trying to express. There is a good philosophical foundation. Yes, "good" is subjective, but this list explains what I feel a good explanation is, and you have agreed.

[BeHereNow]

[daedalus 2.0] What is odd is that you support your view by appealing to "intuition", but then charge that I am being vague in my position.

Intuition is a type of proof. It is not scientific in nature, but (some) scientists and philosophers have accepted it. It is beyond the rational, but not inconsistent with the rational. It is not provable by scientific methods immediately, but undoubtedly will be eventually. If you want to say you have no scientific proof there is no god, you accept the ability to intuit truths, and you intuit “no god”, than it is a stalemate. The concept “no god”, can not be shown to be rationally false.

When you say “There is scientific convincing evidence there is no god, then the listener is entitled to hear this convincing scientific evidence.

I'd have to ask where you got the idea of a God in the first place.

Not relevant to intuitive proof. The concept is not original to me. Once a truth has been intuited, other may accept it on the same terms. This happens in science.
A truth is intuited, others accept it, eventually the proof is found. You want the proof now, it is not available. Additionally, it seems you do not accept the concept of intuitive proof, which is undoubtedly controversial, with only circumstantial evidence. Some would say it is not intuition, but divine revelation, and my only proof that is not true is intuition, because I have accepted, based on the evidence, there is no divine revelation.

The difference between God and DM is that DM is part of this universe and can theoretically be verified.

The science today is the tip of the iceberg. Scientists have spent their lifetime thinking ’There must be a way to verify this idea.’, and they died without seeing the results of their labors.

The Inference to the Best Explanation is the idea I am trying to express. There is a good philosophical foundation. Yes, "good" is subjective, but this list explains what I feel a good explanation is, and you have agreed.

You believe you have found the “best explanation”, and you have a basis for that belief.
So have I.

You start with the pillar ‘All that exists can be demonstrated, verified with the science we have today, or shows great promise of being verified.’

Your “best explanation” is derived from that starting point. We should not be surprised by your conclusions concerning god.

I start with the pillar of ‘Truth can be intuited.’
‘Science is in its infancy’ (we have only just begun) can be inferred by the evidence.
No surprise we arrive at different conclusions.

[byofrcs]

......

Oh how I envy my atheist friends. They have nothing to prove. They can believe whatever they choose, and need offer no convincing evidence. For them the absence of evidence is not only convincing evidence, but proof. If I cannot provide the proper documentation that they accept, my poor grandson does not exist.
If I show them pictures, they will say it is someone else’s grandson. On and on it goes. I have lots of friends who say they have seen my grandson, but my atheist friends do not accept such evidence.

For them there is only one acceptable proof that my grandson (or my god) exists.

They must say it is true, and then it is true. Nothing else is convincing.

Why do I bother (rhetorical).

A very good example actually. The evidence people (lawyers, theists, atheists, deists, pantheists, agnostics etc) would accept today for a filial relationship with a grandchild is a suitable DNA test. Do you not agree that is a better test of filial relationship than your photo of a strawman ?

Can we not therefore mutually agree methods of testing for this so-called "God" ?

On the issue of "Atheist" fields having nothing to prove; this is obvious as we're not the ones who created the many Gods. I have nothing to prove about "Thor". I don't have a belief in Thor, others do (vis a vis Norse-style NRMs).

I don't have a belief in Satan, God (Christian version), Allah, angels, spirits, fairies and any number of other entities. You too probably don't believe in the many fictional things invented by humans.

So you first define the "God" and then we work on the testing process. To me that is very easy once we have a clear definition of what we are testing for and in this we find the problems as the definition isn't very clear.

Atheists are trying to clear this issue up because certainly the stuff from the likes of the Vatican doesn't help clear anything other than a few more acres of the forests they buy for paper pulp to document their confusion.