What if he shot them and they did not die? I know if I dropped a full clip into someone and they kept coming after me I'd sure as hell reload!
As a general proposition (having no idea how different jurisdictions tweak this), you can only use that force which is necessary to prevent further physical harm to yourself.
The use of deadly force in self defense is handled slightly differently - and has a few more restrictions.
To use your example, if they were still coming at you, you might not be justified in shooting them again. If you could stop them using less force, then you are obliged to do so.
The idea is that each juror is supposed to be able to decide for himself what proof beyond a reasonable doubt is and whether the Commonwealth has met the burden.
I disagree with the first part. The standard is a legal standard as read by the judge. It shouldn't be up to the jury to redefine it.
I submit that the burden of proof lies with the atheists to disprove God.
If that's true, then you have an equal burden of proof to prove that there isn't an invisible unicorn in my room, that there aren't teapots on Mars, and that there isn't a mysterious, invisible, gravity-free extra moon orbiting the Earth. The burdenalwayslies with the person making the extraordinary claim. To argue otherwise is to deny logical thought.
Well of course there are teapots on Mars. What else would the Martians use for their tea?(/sarcasm) Why is the reality of God an irrational claim? From your standpoint, being as irritated with the Crazy Christians and Religious People (man I hate that term), I would think that it was the believers who would be the main source of irritation. Because if you think about it, the belief that there is a God does not harm you (much as the belief that there is no God does not harm me), only those who hold said belief and are so zealous to the point where they forget their manners. (Insert name of televangelist here)
You can argue anything. The key is that none of those philosophers could provide a single shred of evidence.
That is, unless you stop discounting rhetoric as credible evidence, at least as far as persuasion goes. Rhetoric can be a powerful tool either way. Were I not a Christian, I might very well be swayed by your arguments, Rym, simply because they are well-thought out and eloquent. Philosophers (most of them, anyway) do not search through science to prove their claims. Are they wrong to use non-scientific means to explore the notion of God? There have been atheists who have written philosophical texts too, so there's no need to feel left out.
So your argument is basically that, because primitive, ignorant people believed in something, that somehow lends validity to the belief?
If you would like to boil it down, my argument is that because people went against the grain and stood against the vast majority of society (the civilizations as a whole were centered around their gods in ancient times), they should show why they are right and why the rest of us, based on however many years of tradition and old thought, are wrong.
How so? God is disproven by default for the 100% lack of evidence. How exactly did these atheists try to "disprove" the notion? How exactly did they "fail?"
By this, I meant that individual atheists had, in their personal struggles against the Almighty, failed. No convention, army or civilization of atheists has ever been laid low by a sudden change in belief, to my knowledge.
.Again, you're citing the old practices of ignorant people as evidence.
They came first. Besides, who is to say that they're ignorant just because they came along earlier?
How is this a useful citation? What "stark reality" are you talking about? C.S. Lewis is by no means an authority, and his personal beliefs are not evidence of anything beyond his personal beliefs.
In intellectual debate, the words of other intellectuals should be given credence. You and I aren't arguing science at this point, we're arguing about something that you contend can't be scientifically proven. The "stark reality" of God. What else can philosophers go on aside from their personal beliefs?
Pascal's Wager has been clearly and totally shown to be fallacious. Furthermore, you're again citing another person's personal belief as opposed to actual evidence.
Much as you are citing your own personal beliefs to show the error of my own personal beliefs?
I don't want to sound rude, but here is where you shoot yourself in the foot particularly well.
Not at all, I've gotten worse.
Holding on to a clearly unproven, fallacious, or disproven belief is irrational no matter how old or dear that belief may be. You've now argued against your own position...
Heh, you got me there.
You're not serious with this statement, are you? That's a terribly ignorant, illogical, and intellectually dishonest stance to take. If this statement is true, then you can't argue against the following: "You can't prove that I'm not god, so my idea that I'm god must stand."
Of course I'm not serious with that statement, Rym.
This is an equally poor statement that has zero logical basis. (Nevermind that fact that you're already assuming a lot without very much citation to back it up). By your logic, the very first irrational belief system mankind conceived must be true, and all more modern irrational beliefs bear the burden of proof. An irrational idea is still irrational no matter who said it first. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one making the extraordinary claim.
Even if the claim is "generally accepted"? You guys claim that man came from RNA floating in a sea, okay? That sounds pretty silly and extraordinary, but it's accepted because you guys claim to have evidence to prove it. We have evidence to prove ours, the problem is that you can't fit God under a microscope. No lens is big enough.
So, in closing, the burden of proof lies with the atheists because theirs is a position that was adopted in opposition to the one that was generally accepted at first.
Likes like the burden of proof lies on you( just assuming that you are Christian). Lets see, you need to disprove the Roman gods, the Greek gods, the Egyptian gods, the Viking gods, the Hindu gods...
I'm not trying to disprove those gods yet. We're not at that point in the discussion. Besides, those gods have faded out and are no longer widely worshiped. They only exist in mythology of civilizations that are no longer with us, except for the Hindus, who are still around and still worship their gods.
Just an additional note, this is why someone believing in the telepathy or talking to the dead or something has the burden of proof on them. While the Skeptic does not have to prove himself. He is the questioner and therefore is asking for evidence, not making a claim that needs to be supported, he is questioning another's claim.
Yeah, I'll give you that. Penn and Teller don't hold the burden of proof (or do they? I'm really not sure). But all the same, the atheists have long passed the point of asking for evidence by default. Now they are making a claim and asserting it on a grand scale. Therefore, the burden shifts to them. Another thing, if God did not make the laws of nature and science, who or what did? Laws must be made or else all is chaos. Who or what set these rules in place? We know that the sun will rise in the morning. We know the stars will come out at night. We know that our eyes work and that gravity (here we go again) will always keep us down. It's all just too perfect. How could it have arisen from nothing? The belief that God did not set it all up so perfectly, that what we are all living is just some big accident resulting from insane improbability and sky-high odds is something based entirely on faith, and quite frankly it's more faith than I possess. How could a rational person simply reason that all this happened on accident?
Back to the reason behind this thread, the burden of proof. Forgive me if I now change my position. It shouldn't be up to any one side to prove whether or not God exists. The Christians need nothing proven to them. They know. The atheists, however, are searching. You always hear about people (generally non-Christians) who are "searching" for something, some meaning. Something in their lives is missing, and they aren't quite sure what it is. All they know is that it's not there when it should be.
Another thing I have yet to understand: why do atheists fight so hard to disprove God? Why are they wasting their energy? If God does not exist, why waste your breath proving it? Why is it that your biggest enemy is something that isn't real?
Atheists claim that there is no God, and that there is no use for faith. Yet they cling to science and good faith in man like a life raft when they have nothing else. Theists and atheists are in similar boats. We just use different terminology. Where one party uses words like "Faith" and "God" the other uses "Reason" and "Science".
It would seem that even the atheists have a god. Their god is a god of nonexistence. They have a god-shaped hole in their hearts as well. They just look at it differently. The atheists are defined by their belief in no God. Even if they deny it, their beliefs fall flat if there truly is no God, because they lack the founding principle of their identity. If there is no God, than why pride yourself on living by that tenant of fai- er, sorry, reason?
Please don't think that I am evangelizing here. I am merely arguing against a belief that just happens to be accepted by many here. The fact that this post now seems to be edging towards the concept of God must be permitted for healthy debate. Otherwise, it would just be a bunch of atheists beating up on a few Christians, and there's no real fun in that. It's too easy for one group and too unfair for another.
Rym, you claimed that Pascal's wager has been shown to be fallacious. By whom has this been shown? Has it been disproved using science? Please tell me how, I would truly like to know.
Atheists are always stumped by how stupid and ridiculous the idea of intelligent design and such are, but this is because they forget about the intelligence. If I didn't believe in God, I too would be confused and skeptical. But I have remembered something that all of you have missed. These acts of God don't make sense unless you include God. It's like an equation that doesn't work without one key factor. The fact that this factor can do anything is often forgotten, which is why intelligent design seems unbelievable.
In closing, I would like to ask you all one question: What would it take to convince you of the existence of God? I do not mean exclusively the Christian God, nor any other label of Him, simply a higher power, or root cause, that men know as God.
HMTKSteve: In my case, the wife was dead, the boyfriend was fleeing, and my guy had to go into his house to get another clip before he came out to shoot at the fleeing boyfriend. Whether you lose on the imminence component is generally going to be determined by facts and circumstances. As in: If the zombie falls, you're done. If the zombie stops, you're done and you might have a duty to retreat. If you are confronted with a lunging zombie, you're probably going to have to go pretty far to lose the defense.
HMTKSteve: In my case, the wife was dead, the boyfriend was fleeing, and my guy had to go into his house to get another clip before he came out to shoot at the fleeing boyfriend. Whether you lose on the imminence component is generally going to be determined by facts and circumstances. As in: If the zombie falls, you're done. If the zombie stops, you're done and you might have a duty to retreat. If you are confronted with a lunging zombie, you're probably going to have to go pretty far to lose the defense.
Kind of reminds me of the old joke:
Judge: Are you aware of the punishment for perjury? Accused: Yes and it's far less than that of murder!
If he killed both people he might have been able to concoct some sort of story without that damn survivor ruining it!
How does one determine whether a claim is ordinary or extraordinary?
An extraordinary claim is one that requires additional and hitherto unknown factors to exist for it to exist. Such a claim contradicts established evidence or significantly impacts the field in which it lies. It makes assumptions where none are necessary.
An ordinary claim does not require an unknown force or additional input. It assumes as little as possible. It does not disprove well-established logical or scientific principles. It does not imply additional theory. Given the choice between two explanations of the same phenomenon, one ordinary and one extraordinary, both explanations being functionally adequate, a rational person must choose the ordinary explanation. The extraordinary one brings with it assumptions that are unfounded or extraneous.
Consider the two following three claims regarding the nature of evolution and natural selection.
Ordinary Claim: Evolution occurs through statistical trends in reproductive survivability.
Extraordinary Claim: Evolution occurs through statistical trends in reproductive survivability guided by god's hand.
Extraordinary Claim: Evolution does not occur.
The first is ordinary. There is a great deal of evidence for this, and no evidence against it. It assumes as little as possible, and fully fits with real-world observations.
The second is extraordinary, for it assumes several additional factors: that god exists, that god can act on the world, that god guides evolution. The theory is functional without this added cruft, so there is thus no basis for adding it.
The third is extraordinary, for it ignores the great mountains of evidence observered in the real world.
Here's another example:
Ordinary Claim: 50% efficiency on a simple mechanical machine.
Such machines already exist, and there is a mountain of evidence that such a thing is possible. There is no reason to doubt it, and accepting it does not require one to accept additional claims.
Borderline Claim: 99.9998% efficiency on a simple mechanical machine.
Such a thing is likely possible based on the current evidence and understanding of physics. It is not, however, easy, and may not indeed be possible. This claim does not, however, go against established and understood theories, and requires no additional explanation or leaps of logic. It is thus not truly extraordinary, and there is evidence that it is possible.
Extraordinary Claim: 100+% efficiency on a simple mechanical machine.
Such a thing, were it to be true, would greatly change the face of the world as we know it. Physics would have to be re-written to take it into account, established theories would have to be re-examined. The ramifications of such a thing are Earth-shattering and revolutionary. It requires additional explanation and numerous logical leaps. This claim is extraordinary.
You must remember that an extraordinary claim is not necessarily wrong. A great many significant scientific advancements throughout history were clearly extraordinary claims when they were made. Those making them provided extraordinary evidence.
HTMKSteve: If you're interested in murder and perjury, there was a case in Louisville, KY concerning both. The defendant was Mel Ignatow. It's a fairly famous case, spawning books and TV shows and such. I knew Ignatow's attorney, Charlie Ricketts, as a distant acquaintance. Charlie was very rude to my wife in an interview. She was interviewing to be a law clerk in his firm and he bitched her out about not being a KY native.
Rym, you claimed that Pascal's wager has been shown to be fallacious. By whom has this been shown? Has it been disproved using science? Please tell me how, I would truly like to know.
Pascal's Wager is the following:
There are two choices:
Believe in god. Not believe in god.
There are two possible realities:
God exists. God does not exist.
There are two possible outcomes in each case.
Believe in god + god exists = heaven for eternity Believe in god + god does not exist = nothing
Not believe in god + god exists = hell for eternity Not believe in god + god does not exist = nothing
Now, according to Pascal's Wager, you're always better off believing in god whether or not he exists. If you believe, the best possible outcome is eternal heaven, while the worst possible outcome is nothing. Not believing has a best possible outcome of nothing and a worst possible outcome of eternal hell.
He is wrong for a great many reasons.
First, he assumes that there are only two possible realities: god or no god. He ignores the possibilities of other gods, vengeful gods, evil gods, etc...
Second, he assumes that there are only two possible choices: believing in god or not. What about believing in other gods? What about believing in many gods? What about believing in every god BUT the one in question?
Third, he assumes that believing in a god guarantees eternal heaven. What if you believe in the wrong god? What if your god damns anyone who believes in him and rewards those who don't? What if your god requires a certain ritual you don't practice properly?
Fourth, he assumes that there are only three possible outcomes: heaven, hell, or nothing. What if there are other possible states? What if there is no heaven? What if there is no hell? What if god damns everyone no matter what?
Fifth, he assumes that there is no cost to belief versus nonbelief. What about going to church/temple/whatever? What about donations? What about time? There are costs to any action, which diminish your possible returns.
Sixth, he assumes that a god will accept your "hedged bet" belief as true belief and reward you accordingly. What if he punishes you for taking such a faithless and expedient position?
I could go on.
No intelligent person can accept Pascal's Wager. It is a greatly flawed and baseless argument.
I'm not trying to disprove those gods yet. We're not at that point in the discussion. Besides, those gods have faded out and are no longer widely worshiped. They only exist in mythology of civilizations that are no longer with us, except for the Hindus, who are still around and still worship their gods.
Ok, so just because they aren't worshiped anymore that eliminates their validity as deities? That would imply that "god/gods" exist only as long as people worship them. You seem to have this idea that just because something is older, it seems to be more valid. I have no idea where you got that idea, but it is completely, absolutely, without a doubt, 100% incorrect.
Why is the reality of God an irrational claim?
The reality of God is an irrational claim because there is no empirical evidence of him ever existing in the first place.
Another thing I have yet to understand: why do atheists fight so hard to disprove God? Why are they wasting their energy? If God does not exist, why waste your breath proving it? Why is it that your biggest enemy is something that isn't real?
We do not try to disprove god, we just want proof, which is a big difference. See, we take a stand that he never existed, it is up to you, the believers, to convince us otherwise.
It would seem that even the atheists have a god. Their god is a god of nonexistence.
You are really off the mark on this one. It seems you are trying to make your irrational belief in a god seem more justified by having us having the same vice. If you were true, you also have more gods than the Judeo-Christian god. You have the gods of the nonexistence of Thor, Zeus, Hermes Ra and the hundreds of other gods that you do not believe in. To quote Dawkins,"I contend we are both atheists, I just go one more god further than you do."
Rym, you claimed that Pascal's wager has been shown to be fallacious. By whom has this been shown? Has it been disproved using science? Please tell me how, I would truly like to know.
The Wiki article I believe states enough on the issue. Besides if God is all knowing, don't you think that he would realize that you are betting your belief in him and damn you forever anyways?
Atheists are always stumped by how stupid and ridiculous the idea of intelligent design and such are, but this is because they forget about the intelligence. If I didn't believe in God, I too would be confused and skeptical. But I have remembered something that all of you have missed. These acts of God don't make sense unless you include God. It's like an equation that doesn't work without one key factor. The fact that this factor can do anything is often forgotten, which is why intelligent design seems unbelievable.
Don't think for one second that Intelligent design is even remotely correct. It is creationism in disguise, and while that may be a valid religious belief, it is certainly not scientific. Things like irreducible complexity are proven, PROVEN (in the scientific sense i.e 99.99999999999999999% sure) to be wrong. Biologist Kenneth Miller, a Christian(!), testified against Micheal Behe ("father" of irreducible complexity) in court on how is statements were false during the court case on whether ID should be taught in schools. For more information here is a link to a BBC documentary on ID versus evolution.
What would it take to convince you of the existence of God? I do not mean exclusively the Christian God, nor any other label of Him, simply a higher power, or root cause, that men know as God.
Physical proof of existence? And even then I would be extremely skeptical. It would much more probable that if a "godlike" being came down from the sky that it would be some kind of alien with advanced technology that would seem "godlike" to us.
Rym, I completely am right next to you in all your assertions in this thread, except your argument against the primitive peoples was based on a Bulveristic logical fallacy. Xassertion is not false because Ypeople believe it.
An extraordinary claim is one that requires additional and hitherto unknown factors to exist for it to exist. Such a claim contradicts established evidence or significantly impacts the field in which it lies. It makes assumptions where none are necessary.
So is "There is no god" an ordinary or an extraordinary claim? Does the claim "There is no god" require additional and hitherto unknown factors to exist for it to be true? If we accept that there is no god (which I do), there are many things left unexplained, things which believers attribute to god. Surely, in the absence of god, we need some explanation of what caused the beginning of everything, or something along those lines? Some scientific development akin to those which in the past have been deemed "extraordinary claims"? If this is the case, then isn't the claim "There is no God" an extraordinary one?
"There is no God" makes no assumptions where none are needed. It does not contradict any established evidence. Just because we can't explain some things does not require the existence of a supernatural being.
So is "There is no god" an ordinary or an extraordinary claim? Does the claim "There is no god" require additional and hitherto unknown factors to exist for it to be true? If we accept that there is no god (which I do), there are many things left unexplained, things which believers attribute to god. Surely, in the absence of god, we need some explanation of what caused the beginning of everything, or something along those lines? Some scientific development akin to those which in the past have been deemed "extraordinary claims"? If this is the case, then isn't the claim "There is no God" an extraordinary one
That's so wrong I could cry.
One, the claim that there is no god requires no assumption and does not conflict with any established, observed, or accepted theory. It is an ordinary claim.
Two, assuming that "god" (or any baseless supernatural force) is the answer to any of the "many things left unexplained" is clearly an extraordinary claim.
A rational person sees an unexplained phenomenon and accepts that it is currently just that: unexplained. Instead of making up an answer, assuming that "god" or "your mom" is the cause, he makes no assumption. He may seek out an explanation. He may posit an explanation. He may test that posit. But the moment he attributes the cause to an assumed and baseless force, he is making an unbacked and extraordinary claim. He is being intellectually dishonest.
The argument of"there are unexplained things, therefore god exists to explain them" is a terrible form of intellectual laziness and a pathetic, illogical argument. It assumes the "therefore" in X, therefore Y. It makes an extraordinary claim.
A truly intelligent and rational person can accept that they don't know something.
This also illustrates the "god of the cracks" fallacy, whereby irrational people, when cornered with evidence, increasingly retreat to what unknown quantities remain and claim that their irrational beliefs still hold there. As science moves ever forward in shrinking these unknown spaces, their gods become smaller and smaller. They argue from whatever position still exists that does not outright deny their faith.
Rym: So you know, Pascal's Wager very specifically refers to the Christian god (Catholic, to be specific, I believe), and the Christian concept of the afterlife. It's actually a bit worse than a simple logical fallacy; it's religious arrogance at its peak. The assertion is that if you fail to believe in the Christian god, you will go to the Christian Hell (if in fact the Christian god exists).
The real problem with the wager, from the standpoint of Christian beliefs, is that you can't "go through the motions" with your faith, which is exactly what Pascal suggests to do. If you don't have faith in god, you're basically screwed, at least according to Christians.
EDIT: When I get home tonight, I'm going to start a discussion tangent to this one, about the importance (or rather, lack thereof) of the question of the existence or non-existence of a god or other sort of divinity in relation to the belief systems centered around said supernatural force or forces. I'd interject my notions into this thread, but I don't want to derail a good flamewar.
EDIT 2: To phrase my Pascal's Wager bit somewhat better, most of your contentions are already answered by the setup; because it assumes the Christian religion, there is no room for worshipping other gods, or vengeful gods, or any other god scenario. It's "believe in the Christian god or go to hell," and the wager is built from there. That is, by the way, the way Christianity works; believe in god or go to hell.
Saying that a person is irrational because of their beliefs is dumb. I believe that as a Catholic-Christian human being, everyone stands on equal footing whether or not their beliefs differ from yours.
I think this thread is possibly a better explanation of what the burden of proof is than the episode that was done on it. It seems to be the perfect example.
The argument of"there are unexplained things, therefore god exists to explain them" is a terrible form of intellectual laziness and a pathetic, illogical argument. It assumes the "therefore" in X, therefore Y. It makes an extraordinary claim.
Rym, you misrepresent my argument. You saw what seemed to be a reference to the "god of the cracks" argument and pounced on it. I am not arguing for the existence of god. A "truly intelligent and rational person" should have seen that my post was simply about the burden of proof.
Anyway, I am still not convinced. We have absolutely no knowledge about what goes on outside the universe (if anything?) or what went on before the big bang. It seems to me that, in this realm, there is no "established, observed or accepted theory" to conflict with or not to conflict with. Any hypothetical answer to the question of life, the universe and everything will be an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence. The distinction between ordinary and extraordinary is kind of meaningless. No? Maybe not.
We have absolutely no knowledge about what goes on outside the universe (if anything?) or what went on before the big bang. It seems to me that, in this realm, there is no "established, observed or accepted theory" to conflict with or not to conflict with. Any hypothetical answer to the question of life, the universe and everything will be an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence.
You've actually hit the nail on the head.
The default answer to any question about the universe is "we don't know." Admitting a lack of knowledge is a perfectly honest and acceptable course, although it is one that does not sit well with many people. Some people therefore go out and seek answers, while others become satisfied with comforting assumptions based on no particular evidence.
Anyone who claims knowledge where previously none existed is making an extraordinary claim. They must provide evidence to back it up in order for a reasoning person to accept an answer other than "we don't know". That evidence must continue to be valid and repeatable for the claim to continue to be supported. The burden of proof is on them, the person making the claim. But once that evidence has accumulated, and no significant counter-evidence has come to light, the claim can be considered no longer extraordinary.
Back to the original question of this thread, then. To the question, "Does god* exist?" the default answer is "we don't know." For too long, a great variety of fallacious evidence has been put forth in support of the positive answer. To date, I at least have not seen any that isn't based in circular logic, an argument from ignorance, or a god in the gaps. The fact that so many people were taken in by this fallacious evidence is not itself evidence of anything other than humanity's ability to pull wool over their collective eyes.
Meanwhile, a great majority of the phenomena that might have once required a supernatural answer have been explained in purely mechanical fashion; this has become the "ordinary claim" about the nature of the universe. Since the existence of god* can't be tested by any method yet invented, while so many other explanations are testable, anyone claiming that god* exists is making a very extraordinary claim, and must provide extraordinary evidence to support it.
*where "god" expands to "Ra/Marduk/The Celestial Dragon/Zeus/Yahweh/Xenu/Flying Spaghetti Monster", etc.
Any hypothetical answer to the question of life, the universe and everything will be an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence.
It is indeed an extraordinary claim. It would indeed require extraordinary evidence. As such, we don't yet have an answer. We may never have an answer There's nothing wrong with that.
Intelligent people admit that they don't have the answer. They put forth possible answers. They debate those possible answers.
But to then claim that the answer is god/Zeus/anything is the height of unreasonable and irrational thought.
Just to reiterate Alex's point. Let's look at the question of what happened before the big bang on a more human scale. Let's say I walk down the street and find a sealed and unmarked box. For the sake of argument, we have no way of collecting evidence from the box. We don't know the weight of the box. We can't shake it to hear what is inside. For some reason, we can't even figure out the size of the box. We know nothing.
Any rational person can only say that we have no idea what is in the box. They would assume nothing about the box's contents until evidence were collected.
A theist would say that because we have yet to collect evidence about what is inside the box, it must contain an omnipotent and omniscient deity who created the entire universe and still haunts us today.
An theist would say that because we have yet to collect evidence about what is inside the box, it must contain an omnipotent and omniscient deity who created the entire universe and still haunts us today, and will do us great harm if we do not do as it says. but, lucky for us, that theist has a special book, that the thing in the box dictated to him, telling us what it wants.
Fixed that for you. Would have changed the font color but my browser had errors...
To the question, "Does god* exist?" the default answer is "we don't know."
So if the default answer is "we don't know", rather than "there is no god", why is there a burden of proof on the theist but not on the atheist?
Rym put forward this reason:
One, the claim that there is no god requires no assumption and does not conflict with any established, observed, or accepted theory. It is an ordinary claim.
But how does the claim that there is a god actually conflict with any established, observed, or accepted theory?
Since we know nothing, it seems to me that "there is no god" is as much a shot in the dark as "there is a god". I still can't understand how "there is no god" is an ordinary claim. It is claiming knowledge where previously none existed. And as Alex put it:
Anyone who claims knowledge where previously none existed is making an extraordinary claim.
So if the default answer is "we don't know", rather than "there is no god", why is there a burden of proof on the theist but not on the atheist?
The claim that there is no god is an ordinary claim that conflicts with nothing we know. There is no evidence whatsoever of a god, and we can trace the secular origins of these myths.
There is no evidence of a god, so "no god" is the default. If you want to challenge this default with a claim, then you'd better back it up. Same with an invisible potato or a magic floating space castle. It's an ordinary claim to suggest that something which has never been observed and is not likely to ever be observed does not exist.
Would you consider the claim of the magic invisible potato to be ordinary?
But how does the claim that there is a god actuallyconflictwith any established, observed, or accepted theory?
No god has ever been observed. No effect of a god has ever been observed that cannot be adequately explained with fewer assumptions. No verifiable evidence of a god has ever been found. Religions have clear evidence of secular origin. Religious beliefs are not consistent. Existence of god assumes mechanisms for said existence. Existence of effective god assumes mechanisms for said god's interaction with world.
There is no phenomenon ever observed that cannot be explained with fewer assumptions than the assumption that there is a god acting on it.
Since we know nothing, it seems to me that "there is no god" is as much a shot in the dark as "there is a god". I still can't understand how "there is no god" is an ordinary claim.
What is your claim? Are you claiming that there is a god? What god? Make a claim. By default, there is nothing. Not believing in a god is no different than not believing in a unicorn or an invisible potato orbiting Neptune.
By your logic, since I can't immediately and perfectly disprove the existence of my magical orbiting potato, I MUST accept the possibility that it exists and treat it with due respect. Not to sound rude, but that is pure horseshit.
You don't believe in my potato. Why don't you believe in my potato? Think about the reasons you give. Those are the exact same reasons why no rational person believes in god.
It's an equal "shot in the dark" about the potato as it is about god.
Sure, we don't know anything 100%. But there's a 99.9999999999999999% chance that my potato doesn't exist. Would you respect someone's intelligence if they believed in this potato anyway? What if they sacrificed to it? What if they prayed to it? What if they told you all about the history of it?
The default answer to any question about the universe is "we don't know."
Alex said it perfectly. I defy an intelligent person to reasonably argue against that.
There is no evidence of a god, so "no god" is the default.
So what is the default, "no god" or "I don't know"? Have you changed your mind, or am I missing something? My question is: why would non-existence be the default, when speaking of god, who sits on his hypothetical throne just beyond the borders of the universe?
Sure, as regards to worldly matters, like unicorns or flying potatoes, non-existence is the default, since existence would conflict with what we already know about the world. But you can't extrapolate from that, that non-existence is the default when talking about something outside the bounds of the universe, or before the beginning of time, or something along those lines (who knows what those crazy christians believe), because we know nothing about what happened before the beginning of time; there is no body of evidence for any claim to conflict with. We must admit complete ignorance. There is no more reason to think that nothing existed before the big bang than there is to believe that everything existed before the big bang, or that only blue things existed before the big bang.*
Hmm.. maybe the disagreement stems from different views of what god is. You are completely right if we're talking about a god who performs miracles, say, or creates floods or sets bushes on fire, or something along those lines. But I'm referring to a god whose role is restricted to the creation of the universe.
*Note that I am not advocating the worship of blue things at the expense of other colours.
Comments
The use of deadly force in self defense is handled slightly differently - and has a few more restrictions.
To use your example, if they were still coming at you, you might not be justified in shooting them again. If you could stop them using less force, then you are obliged to do so.
If you would like to boil it down, my argument is that because people went against the grain and stood against the vast majority of society (the civilizations as a whole were centered around their gods in ancient times), they should show why they are right and why the rest of us, based on however many years of tradition and old thought, are wrong. By this, I meant that individual atheists had, in their personal struggles against the Almighty, failed. No convention, army or civilization of atheists has ever been laid low by a sudden change in belief, to my knowledge. They came first. Besides, who is to say that they're ignorant just because they came along earlier? In intellectual debate, the words of other intellectuals should be given credence. You and I aren't arguing science at this point, we're arguing about something that you contend can't be scientifically proven. The "stark reality" of God. What else can philosophers go on aside from their personal beliefs? Much as you are citing your own personal beliefs to show the error of my own personal beliefs?
Not at all, I've gotten worse. Heh, you got me there. Of course I'm not serious with that statement, Rym. Even if the claim is "generally accepted"? You guys claim that man came from RNA floating in a sea, okay? That sounds pretty silly and extraordinary, but it's accepted because you guys claim to have evidence to prove it. We have evidence to prove ours, the problem is that you can't fit God under a microscope. No lens is big enough. I'm not trying to disprove those gods yet. We're not at that point in the discussion. Besides, those gods have faded out and are no longer widely worshiped. They only exist in mythology of civilizations that are no longer with us, except for the Hindus, who are still around and still worship their gods. Yeah, I'll give you that. Penn and Teller don't hold the burden of proof (or do they? I'm really not sure). But all the same, the atheists have long passed the point of asking for evidence by default. Now they are making a claim and asserting it on a grand scale. Therefore, the burden shifts to them. Another thing, if God did not make the laws of nature and science, who or what did? Laws must be made or else all is chaos. Who or what set these rules in place? We know that the sun will rise in the morning. We know the stars will come out at night. We know that our eyes work and that gravity (here we go again) will always keep us down. It's all just too perfect. How could it have arisen from nothing? The belief that God did not set it all up so perfectly, that what we are all living is just some big accident resulting from insane improbability and sky-high odds is something based entirely on faith, and quite frankly it's more faith than I possess. How could a rational person simply reason that all this happened on accident?
Another thing I have yet to understand: why do atheists fight so hard to disprove God? Why are they wasting their energy? If God does not exist, why waste your breath proving it? Why is it that your biggest enemy is something that isn't real?
Atheists claim that there is no God, and that there is no use for faith. Yet they cling to science and good faith in man like a life raft when they have nothing else. Theists and atheists are in similar boats. We just use different terminology. Where one party uses words like "Faith" and "God" the other uses "Reason" and "Science".
It would seem that even the atheists have a god. Their god is a god of nonexistence. They have a god-shaped hole in their hearts as well. They just look at it differently. The atheists are defined by their belief in no God. Even if they deny it, their beliefs fall flat if there truly is no God, because they lack the founding principle of their identity. If there is no God, than why pride yourself on living by that tenant of fai- er, sorry, reason?
Please don't think that I am evangelizing here. I am merely arguing against a belief that just happens to be accepted by many here. The fact that this post now seems to be edging towards the concept of God must be permitted for healthy debate. Otherwise, it would just be a bunch of atheists beating up on a few Christians, and there's no real fun in that. It's too easy for one group and too unfair for another.
Rym, you claimed that Pascal's wager has been shown to be fallacious. By whom has this been shown? Has it been disproved using science? Please tell me how, I would truly like to know.
Atheists are always stumped by how stupid and ridiculous the idea of intelligent design and such are, but this is because they forget about the intelligence. If I didn't believe in God, I too would be confused and skeptical. But I have remembered something that all of you have missed. These acts of God don't make sense unless you include God. It's like an equation that doesn't work without one key factor. The fact that this factor can do anything is often forgotten, which is why intelligent design seems unbelievable.
In closing, I would like to ask you all one question: What would it take to convince you of the existence of God? I do not mean exclusively the Christian God, nor any other label of Him, simply a higher power, or root cause, that men know as God.
Judge: Are you aware of the punishment for perjury?
Accused: Yes and it's far less than that of murder!
If he killed both people he might have been able to concoct some sort of story without that damn survivor ruining it!
An ordinary claim does not require an unknown force or additional input. It assumes as little as possible. It does not disprove well-established logical or scientific principles. It does not imply additional theory. Given the choice between two explanations of the same phenomenon, one ordinary and one extraordinary, both explanations being functionally adequate, a rational person must choose the ordinary explanation. The extraordinary one brings with it assumptions that are unfounded or extraneous.
Consider the two following three claims regarding the nature of evolution and natural selection.
Ordinary Claim:
Evolution occurs through statistical trends in reproductive survivability.
Extraordinary Claim:
Evolution occurs through statistical trends in reproductive survivability guided by god's hand.
Extraordinary Claim:
Evolution does not occur.
The first is ordinary. There is a great deal of evidence for this, and no evidence against it. It assumes as little as possible, and fully fits with real-world observations.
The second is extraordinary, for it assumes several additional factors: that god exists, that god can act on the world, that god guides evolution. The theory is functional without this added cruft, so there is thus no basis for adding it.
The third is extraordinary, for it ignores the great mountains of evidence observered in the real world.
Here's another example:
Ordinary Claim:
50% efficiency on a simple mechanical machine.
Such machines already exist, and there is a mountain of evidence that such a thing is possible. There is no reason to doubt it, and accepting it does not require one to accept additional claims.
Borderline Claim:
99.9998% efficiency on a simple mechanical machine.
Such a thing is likely possible based on the current evidence and understanding of physics. It is not, however, easy, and may not indeed be possible. This claim does not, however, go against established and understood theories, and requires no additional explanation or leaps of logic. It is thus not truly extraordinary, and there is evidence that it is possible.
Extraordinary Claim:
100+% efficiency on a simple mechanical machine.
Such a thing, were it to be true, would greatly change the face of the world as we know it. Physics would have to be re-written to take it into account, established theories would have to be re-examined. The ramifications of such a thing are Earth-shattering and revolutionary. It requires additional explanation and numerous logical leaps. This claim is extraordinary.
You must remember that an extraordinary claim is not necessarily wrong. A great many significant scientific advancements throughout history were clearly extraordinary claims when they were made. Those making them provided extraordinary evidence.
There are two choices:
Believe in god.
Not believe in god.
There are two possible realities:
God exists.
God does not exist.
There are two possible outcomes in each case.
Believe in god + god exists = heaven for eternity
Believe in god + god does not exist = nothing
Not believe in god + god exists = hell for eternity
Not believe in god + god does not exist = nothing
Now, according to Pascal's Wager, you're always better off believing in god whether or not he exists. If you believe, the best possible outcome is eternal heaven, while the worst possible outcome is nothing. Not believing has a best possible outcome of nothing and a worst possible outcome of eternal hell.
He is wrong for a great many reasons.
First, he assumes that there are only two possible realities: god or no god. He ignores the possibilities of other gods, vengeful gods, evil gods, etc...
Second, he assumes that there are only two possible choices: believing in god or not. What about believing in other gods? What about believing in many gods? What about believing in every god BUT the one in question?
Third, he assumes that believing in a god guarantees eternal heaven. What if you believe in the wrong god? What if your god damns anyone who believes in him and rewards those who don't? What if your god requires a certain ritual you don't practice properly?
Fourth, he assumes that there are only three possible outcomes: heaven, hell, or nothing. What if there are other possible states? What if there is no heaven? What if there is no hell? What if god damns everyone no matter what?
Fifth, he assumes that there is no cost to belief versus nonbelief. What about going to church/temple/whatever? What about donations? What about time? There are costs to any action, which diminish your possible returns.
Sixth, he assumes that a god will accept your "hedged bet" belief as true belief and reward you accordingly. What if he punishes you for taking such a faithless and expedient position?
I could go on.
No intelligent person can accept Pascal's Wager. It is a greatly flawed and baseless argument.
Does the claim "There is no god" require additional and hitherto unknown factors to exist for it to be true? If we accept that there is no god (which I do), there are many things left unexplained, things which believers attribute to god. Surely, in the absence of god, we need some explanation of what caused the beginning of everything, or something along those lines? Some scientific development akin to those which in the past have been deemed "extraordinary claims"? If this is the case, then isn't the claim "There is no God" an extraordinary one?
One, the claim that there is no god requires no assumption and does not conflict with any established, observed, or accepted theory. It is an ordinary claim.
Two, assuming that "god" (or any baseless supernatural force) is the answer to any of the "many things left unexplained" is clearly an extraordinary claim.
A rational person sees an unexplained phenomenon and accepts that it is currently just that: unexplained. Instead of making up an answer, assuming that "god" or "your mom" is the cause, he makes no assumption. He may seek out an explanation. He may posit an explanation. He may test that posit. But the moment he attributes the cause to an assumed and baseless force, he is making an unbacked and extraordinary claim. He is being intellectually dishonest.
The argument of"there are unexplained things, therefore god exists to explain them" is a terrible form of intellectual laziness and a pathetic, illogical argument. It assumes the "therefore" in X, therefore Y. It makes an extraordinary claim.
A truly intelligent and rational person can accept that they don't know something.
This also illustrates the "god of the cracks" fallacy, whereby irrational people, when cornered with evidence, increasingly retreat to what unknown quantities remain and claim that their irrational beliefs still hold there. As science moves ever forward in shrinking these unknown spaces, their gods become smaller and smaller. They argue from whatever position still exists that does not outright deny their faith.
The real problem with the wager, from the standpoint of Christian beliefs, is that you can't "go through the motions" with your faith, which is exactly what Pascal suggests to do. If you don't have faith in god, you're basically screwed, at least according to Christians.
EDIT: When I get home tonight, I'm going to start a discussion tangent to this one, about the importance (or rather, lack thereof) of the question of the existence or non-existence of a god or other sort of divinity in relation to the belief systems centered around said supernatural force or forces. I'd interject my notions into this thread, but I don't want to derail a good flamewar.
EDIT 2: To phrase my Pascal's Wager bit somewhat better, most of your contentions are already answered by the setup; because it assumes the Christian religion, there is no room for worshipping other gods, or vengeful gods, or any other god scenario. It's "believe in the Christian god or go to hell," and the wager is built from there. That is, by the way, the way Christianity works; believe in god or go to hell.
Anyway, I am still not convinced. We have absolutely no knowledge about what goes on outside the universe (if anything?) or what went on before the big bang. It seems to me that, in this realm, there is no "established, observed or accepted theory" to conflict with or not to conflict with. Any hypothetical answer to the question of life, the universe and everything will be an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence. The distinction between ordinary and extraordinary is kind of meaningless. No? Maybe not.
The default answer to any question about the universe is "we don't know." Admitting a lack of knowledge is a perfectly honest and acceptable course, although it is one that does not sit well with many people. Some people therefore go out and seek answers, while others become satisfied with comforting assumptions based on no particular evidence.
Anyone who claims knowledge where previously none existed is making an extraordinary claim. They must provide evidence to back it up in order for a reasoning person to accept an answer other than "we don't know". That evidence must continue to be valid and repeatable for the claim to continue to be supported. The burden of proof is on them, the person making the claim. But once that evidence has accumulated, and no significant counter-evidence has come to light, the claim can be considered no longer extraordinary.
Back to the original question of this thread, then. To the question, "Does god* exist?" the default answer is "we don't know." For too long, a great variety of fallacious evidence has been put forth in support of the positive answer. To date, I at least have not seen any that isn't based in circular logic, an argument from ignorance, or a god in the gaps. The fact that so many people were taken in by this fallacious evidence is not itself evidence of anything other than humanity's ability to pull wool over their collective eyes.
Meanwhile, a great majority of the phenomena that might have once required a supernatural answer have been explained in purely mechanical fashion; this has become the "ordinary claim" about the nature of the universe. Since the existence of god* can't be tested by any method yet invented, while so many other explanations are testable, anyone claiming that god* exists is making a very extraordinary claim, and must provide extraordinary evidence to support it.
*where "god" expands to "Ra/Marduk/The Celestial Dragon/Zeus/Yahweh/Xenu/Flying Spaghetti Monster", etc.
Intelligent people admit that they don't have the answer. They put forth possible answers. They debate those possible answers.
But to then claim that the answer is god/Zeus/anything is the height of unreasonable and irrational thought.
Any rational person can only say that we have no idea what is in the box. They would assume nothing about the box's contents until evidence were collected.
A theist would say that because we have yet to collect evidence about what is inside the box, it must contain an omnipotent and omniscient deity who created the entire universe and still haunts us today.
Which one of those two do you believe?
Rym put forward this reason: But how does the claim that there is a god actually conflict with any established, observed, or accepted theory?
Since we know nothing, it seems to me that "there is no god" is as much a shot in the dark as "there is a god". I still can't understand how "there is no god" is an ordinary claim. It is claiming knowledge where previously none existed. And as Alex put it:
There is no evidence of a god, so "no god" is the default. If you want to challenge this default with a claim, then you'd better back it up. Same with an invisible potato or a magic floating space castle. It's an ordinary claim to suggest that something which has never been observed and is not likely to ever be observed does not exist.
Would you consider the claim of the magic invisible potato to be ordinary? No god has ever been observed.
No effect of a god has ever been observed that cannot be adequately explained with fewer assumptions.
No verifiable evidence of a god has ever been found.
Religions have clear evidence of secular origin.
Religious beliefs are not consistent.
Existence of god assumes mechanisms for said existence.
Existence of effective god assumes mechanisms for said god's interaction with world.
There is no phenomenon ever observed that cannot be explained with fewer assumptions than the assumption that there is a god acting on it. What is your claim? Are you claiming that there is a god? What god? Make a claim. By default, there is nothing. Not believing in a god is no different than not believing in a unicorn or an invisible potato orbiting Neptune.
By your logic, since I can't immediately and perfectly disprove the existence of my magical orbiting potato, I MUST accept the possibility that it exists and treat it with due respect. Not to sound rude, but that is pure horseshit.
You don't believe in my potato. Why don't you believe in my potato? Think about the reasons you give. Those are the exact same reasons why no rational person believes in god.
It's an equal "shot in the dark" about the potato as it is about god.
Sure, we don't know anything 100%. But there's a 99.9999999999999999% chance that my potato doesn't exist. Would you respect someone's intelligence if they believed in this potato anyway? What if they sacrificed to it? What if they prayed to it? What if they told you all about the history of it?
What would you think of this person?
My question is: why would non-existence be the default, when speaking of god, who sits on his hypothetical throne just beyond the borders of the universe?
Sure, as regards to worldly matters, like unicorns or flying potatoes, non-existence is the default, since existence would conflict with what we already know about the world. But you can't extrapolate from that, that non-existence is the default when talking about something outside the bounds of the universe, or before the beginning of time, or something along those lines (who knows what those crazy christians believe), because we know nothing about what happened before the beginning of time; there is no body of evidence for any claim to conflict with. We must admit complete ignorance. There is no more reason to think that nothing existed before the big bang than there is to believe that everything existed before the big bang, or that only blue things existed before the big bang.*
Hmm.. maybe the disagreement stems from different views of what god is. You are completely right if we're talking about a god who performs miracles, say, or creates floods or sets bushes on fire, or something along those lines. But I'm referring to a god whose role is restricted to the creation of the universe.
*Note that I am not advocating the worship of blue things at the expense of other colours.
This video explains everything. Nope. No logical fallacies in the video at all.
When will you guys be doing a review of this boardgame?