Political Crossfire Forums

[Lord Hargreaves]

Enoch wrote:

However, the difference between your God/fire/elephants/jumping/giraffes analogies is that most can be proven through empirical tests.

You have confused what I said. The giraffe is different to the fire/elephants/jumping analogies. A blue giraffe with pink stripes not not exist, therefore the giraffe that was seen was made up, or as you might put it, "believed in without evidence". What I was later saying is that things such as "elephants have feet" are known to us because we can see it as thus, and we downplay the possibility of the negative because we dismiss the idea that there is something 'other' to what we experience. The same with "God does not exist".

Enoch wrote: You can not prove that God does not exist (which, to attempt to do so is a fallacy itself as you can not prove a negative).

This is a rather trite and finicky picking at grammar. I can prove I am a human being, therefore, I can prove I am not a tree. For all practical purposes this was an unnecessary comment.

Enoch wrote: Likewise, I can not prove that God DOES exist. We are both relying on faith there as there is no data to support nor refute either of our perspectives.

There is such a difference here! Atheism is disbelief in the supernatural, believing in God obviously belief in the supernatural. Atheism is "what you see is what you get" and belief is "there is something more existing than what you see". There is not a shred of evidence for God, so rationally we infer that, indeed, what you see is what you get, and, like I have previously said with the giraffe story, there is no "leap of faith" required to believe just this

Enoch wrote:

Likewise, it appears that you are committing the fallacy of "Argumentum ad Ignorantium," or argument from ignorance. "There is no proof that God exists, therefore he does not." Lack of proof does not constitute lack of existence.

No. You have not understood Argumentum ad Ignorantium. This would only apply in a neutral starting environment, and would only be a fallacy when it is used by an individual to dismiss one opinion of two in favour of another. For instance, you see a fight between Bob and Ben, and approach a person to ask them who started it. He says "There is no evidence that Bob started the fight, therefore Bob did not start the fight". Clearly Argumentum ad Ignorantium

In this situation, on whether atheism on the basis of no evidence is a fallacy, the answer is clearly no. This is because you have ignored presumption and probability.

Presumption: In a criminal trial, the accused is said to be "presumed innocent", and will not be "found guilty" until certainty beyond a reasonable doubt is achieved. Therefore it is not Argumentum ad Ignorantium to conclude something (innocence) based on lack of evidence.

Probability: At least in everyday language, the onus is on the man with the unusual or outlandish claim to prove his thesis, rather than the man with a reasonable or well established thesis to disprove it. If X says "I walked to the moon", it is ridiculous to accuse me of Argumentum ad Ignorantium when I reply "even though i have no evidence either way, i can be as certain that you didn't walk to the moon as any other empirical proposition"

Put simply, Argumentum ad Ignorantium does not apply because any reasonable person would presume atheism to start with (as i have been trying to say repeatedly with the giraffe) and place the onus on you to prove that God exists, since God not existing is far more believable

[Enoch]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Enoch wrote:

However, the difference between your God/fire/elephants/jumping/giraffes analogies is that most can be proven through empirical tests.

You have confused what I said. The giraffe is different to the fire/elephants/jumping analogies. A blue giraffe with pink stripes not not exist, therefore the giraffe that was seen was made up, or as you might put it, "believed in without evidence". What I was later saying is that things such as "elephants have feet" are known to us because we can see it as thus, and we downplay the possibility of the negative because we dismiss the idea that there is something 'other' to what we experience. The same with "God does not exist".

Enoch wrote: You can not prove that God does not exist (which, to attempt to do so is a fallacy itself as you can not prove a negative).

This is a rather trite and finicky picking at grammar. I can prove I am a human being, therefore, I can prove I am not a tree. For all practical purposes this was an unnecessary comment.

Enoch wrote: Likewise, I can not prove that God DOES exist. We are both relying on faith there as there is no data to support nor refute either of our perspectives.

There is such a difference here! Atheism is disbelief in the supernatural, believing in God obviously belief in the supernatural. Atheism is "what you see is what you get" and belief is "there is something more existing than what you see". There is not a shred of evidence for God, so rationally we infer that, indeed, what you see is what you get, and, like I have previously said with the giraffe story, there is no "leap of faith" required to believe just this

Enoch wrote:

Likewise, it appears that you are committing the fallacy of "Argumentum ad Ignorantium," or argument from ignorance. "There is no proof that God exists, therefore he does not." Lack of proof does not constitute lack of existence.

No. You have not understood Argumentum ad Ignorantium. This would only apply in a neutral starting environment, and would only be a fallacy when it is used by an individual to dismiss one opinion of two in favour of another. For instance, you see a fight between Bob and Ben, and approach a person to ask them who started it. He says "There is no evidence that Bob started the fight, therefore Bob did not start the fight". Clearly Argumentum ad Ignorantium

In this situation, on whether atheism on the basis of no evidence is a fallacy, the answer is clearly no. This is because you have ignored presumption and probability.

Presumption: In a criminal trial, the accused is said to be "presumed innocent", and will not be "found guilty" until certainty beyond a reasonable doubt is achieved. Therefore it is not Argumentum ad Ignorantium to conclude something (innocence) based on lack of evidence.

Probability: At least in everyday language, the onus is on the man with the unusual or outlandish claim to prove his thesis, rather than the man with a reasonable or well established thesis to disprove it. If X says "I walked to the moon", it is ridiculous to accuse me of Argumentum ad Ignorantium when I reply "even though i have no evidence either way, i can be as certain that you didn't walk to the moon as any other empirical proposition"

Put simply, Argumentum ad Ignorantium does not apply because any reasonable person would presume atheism to start with (as i have been trying to say repeatedly with the giraffe) and place the onus on you to prove that God exists, since God not existing is far more believable I understand argument from ignorance perfectly well, and the arument of "there is no proof God exists, therefore God does not exist" is a clear example. You are attempting to equate lack of evidence in favor of a contention as indicative of the contention's inaccuracy. That is what an argument from ignorance is.

Also, why bother with the unnecessary comments? If you know it is unnecessary, don't bother.

[mODULAR mAN]

Enoch wrote:
Hasty generalizations ARE logical fallcies. It is illogical to paint ALL members of a group based on the actions of SOME. So, yes, saying that all "religionists" use fallacious arguments to defend their beliefs is, itself, a fallacy.
YOu are right, a hasty gen. is a fallacy. I didn't do it though. Read my post.

I didn't say all religionists use fallacious arguments, I said we could have a whole thread of all the fallacious arguments religionists use.

Perhaps it is a monumental task, but it's not a fallacy.

edit: In fact I didn't een use the word "all" in my OP:

Quote: I think we could do a whole post on the fallacies that religionists use.

The most common I see is the Argument from Ignorance/God of the Gaps/Argument from Personal Incredulity...

I challenge any theist/religionist/supernaturalist to make their case without using a fallacy.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Enoch wrote: I understand argument from ignorance perfectly well, and the arument of "there is no proof God exists, therefore God does not exist" is a clear example. You are attempting to equate lack of evidence in favor of a contention as indicative of the contention's inaccuracy. That is what an argument from ignorance is.

Well I hoped to just establish that this just isn't the case. Atheism based on lack of evidence is anything but a clear example of the argument from ignorance. If nothing can be dismissed because there is no evidence for it, and presumption and probability play no part, then there is no justification for making any inference or scientific theory at all.

C'mon, which is the more sensible statement?

"There is no evidence to prove the claim that if you don't cut your hair at some point gravity no longer applies and you float, but to dismiss it on these grounds would be Argumentum ad Ignorantium, therefore it cannot be dismissed"

OR

"There is no evidence to prove the claim that if you don't cut your hair at some point gravity no longer applies and you float, therefore it can be dismissed as being false with as much certainty as any other false empirical proposition"

[mODULAR mAN]

Enoch wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: I'll say it again. Every argument for god has been challenged and has proved wanting. It is up to theists to provide evidence for their claim.

"There could be a god" is not an argument, especially when virtually every counter to that "argument" shows that there can't be a god.


The bold part is what stands out to me the most. Why is it up to the religious to prove anything? I have no desire to prove to you that God exists. Don't believe? Fine, I don't care. In fact, I would venture to say that a great number of religious people feel this way. I don't recall seeing threads in here that attempt to prove God exists to the atheists. Yet, I have seen numerous threads from atheists attempting to disprove the beliefs of others. So, why are some atheists, such as yourself, so intent on "proving" their assertions by attempting to force us to prove ours?

Also, you say that there are arguments to show that there can't be a God? Fine, what are they? I'd really like to see those.

1. The burden of proof (or any evidence) is on the person who makes the extraordinary claim. Especially if you make assertions that affect society.

2. There are many arguments that disprove a god. It depends on the definiton. Provide a definition of a god and I'll show you the argument. Since there are thousands of god theories/hypothesis, I can't post them all here. Define your god hypothesis.

[Enoch]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Enoch wrote: I understand argument from ignorance perfectly well, and the arument of "there is no proof God exists, therefore God does not exist" is a clear example. You are attempting to equate lack of evidence in favor of a contention as indicative of the contention's inaccuracy. That is what an argument from ignorance is.

Well I hoped to just establish that this just isn't the case. Atheism based on lack of evidence is anything but a clear example of the argument from ignorance. If nothing can be dismissed because there is no evidence for it, and presumption and probability play no part, then there is no justification for making any inference or scientific theory at all.

C'mon, which is the more sensible statement?

"There is no evidence to prove the claim that if you don't cut your hair at some point gravity no longer applies and you float, but to dismiss it on these grounds would be Argumentum ad Ignorantium, therefore it cannot be dismissed"

OR

"There is no evidence to prove the claim that if you don't cut your hair at some point gravity no longer applies and you float, therefore it can be dismissed as being false with as much certainty as any other false empirical proposition"

It is a fallacy to claim that lack of evidence indicates lack of existence (stating that the lack of existence is fact). However, it is NOT a fallacy to claim that lack of evidence indicates improbability. I would accept your claim that "there is no evidence to prove the existence of God, therefore it is improbable that God exists," but that is not what you are claiming here. (If I am mistaken and that IS what you are claiming, I will concede that I misunderstood you.) You are claiming, from my understanding of your posts, that lack of evidence proves a factual claim of nonexistence. THAT is an argument from ignorance.

[Enoch]

mODULAR mAN wrote: Enoch wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: I'll say it again. Every argument for god has been challenged and has proved wanting. It is up to theists to provide evidence for their claim.

"There could be a god" is not an argument, especially when virtually every counter to that "argument" shows that there can't be a god.


The bold part is what stands out to me the most. Why is it up to the religious to prove anything? I have no desire to prove to you that God exists. Don't believe? Fine, I don't care. In fact, I would venture to say that a great number of religious people feel this way. I don't recall seeing threads in here that attempt to prove God exists to the atheists. Yet, I have seen numerous threads from atheists attempting to disprove the beliefs of others. So, why are some atheists, such as yourself, so intent on "proving" their assertions by attempting to force us to prove ours?

Also, you say that there are arguments to show that there can't be a God? Fine, what are they? I'd really like to see those.

1. The burden of proof (or any evidence) is on the person who makes the extraordinary claim. Especially if you make assertions that affect society.

2. There are many arguments that disprove a god. It depends on the definiton. Provide a definition of a god and I'll show you the argument. Since there are thousands of god theories/hypothesis, I can't post them all here. Define your god hypothesis.

1. True, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim (if said claim is used as a basis for a claim of policy or fact). However, not all religious people use their belief in God to do either of the aforementioned. I, for one, have never attempted to use my faith to back up a claim of policy or fact.

2. My definition of God: A being/entity/higher power responsible for the creation of the universe and all in it. So, what arguments are there to show me that God, as defined here, can't exist?

[wormwood]

mODULAR mAN:
Quote: 1. The burden of proof (or any evidence) is on the person who makes the extraordinary claim. Especially if you make assertions that affect society. This is very true...BUT, if you think about it, that means that atheists have the burden of proof. Societies were, as far as written record shows, always run by religious people. Religion has always been the excepted norm. So in this sense, it is atheists making the extraordinary claim even if that seems counter intuitive. Atheists are also guilty of trying to have government policies that reflect their values, and since it is they who are making claims that go against the excepted norm, it is they who have the burden of proof.

Quote: 2. There are many arguments that disprove a god. It depends on the definiton. Provide a definition of a god and I'll show you the argument. Existence which has become or always was aware of itself.

[eynon]

wormwood wrote: Existence which has become or always was aware of itself.

damn.........I thought about that and my ears started to bleed :lol:

[Lord Hargreaves]

Enoch wrote: It is a fallacy to claim that lack of evidence indicates lack of existence (stating that the lack of existence is fact). However, it is NOT a fallacy to claim that lack of evidence indicates improbability. I would accept your claim that "there is no evidence to prove the existence of God, therefore it is improbable that God exists," but that is not what you are claiming here. (If I am mistaken and that IS what you are claiming, I will concede that I misunderstood you.) You are claiming, from my understanding of your posts, that lack of evidence proves a factual claim of nonexistence. THAT is an argument from ignorance.

I am claiming it is certain only in the everyday use of that word, of course. What I am claiming with this though is that in 'philosophical' usage of the word certain, it is as certain as certain can be. My statement "God does not exist" is as certain as everything else that you take to be certain, but admit absolute knowledge can never be obtained on.

I am purposely leaving the door open to you here and admitting that knowledge of God is not absolutely certain, but am at the same time fully aware that should you walk through the door you would undermine the word certainty completely and show it has no meaning for anything at all. If you were to claim that the statement "elephants have feet" is uncertain, then by all means, say that the statement "God does not exist" is also uncertain. I cant believe you would, but if you did, my hands will go up - you win.

I take this position because they are both empirical statements about the world around us - if it is not possible for anyone or anything to empirically observe God, we can say She doesnt exist. To say otherwise, as I have previously said in another post, is to undermine our claim to all knowledge - to believe "what you see is what you get" does not require faith. (It also leads to absurdities - hello Santa Claus)

[Babylon_Horuv]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Enoch wrote:

However, the difference between your God/fire/elephants/jumping/giraffes analogies is that most can be proven through empirical tests.

You have confused what I said. The giraffe is different to the fire/elephants/jumping analogies. A blue giraffe with pink stripes not not exist, therefore the giraffe that was seen was made up, or as you might put it, "believed in without evidence". What I was later saying is that things such as "elephants have feet" are known to us because we can see it as thus, and we downplay the possibility of the negative because we dismiss the idea that there is something 'other' to what we experience. The same with "God does not exist".

Enoch wrote: You can not prove that God does not exist (which, to attempt to do so is a fallacy itself as you can not prove a negative).

This is a rather trite and finicky picking at grammar. I can prove I am a human being, therefore, I can prove I am not a tree. For all practical purposes this was an unnecessary comment.

Enoch wrote: Likewise, I can not prove that God DOES exist. We are both relying on faith there as there is no data to support nor refute either of our perspectives.

There is such a difference here! Atheism is disbelief in the supernatural, believing in God obviously belief in the supernatural. Atheism is "what you see is what you get" and belief is "there is something more existing than what you see". There is not a shred of evidence for God, so rationally we infer that, indeed, what you see is what you get, and, like I have previously said with the giraffe story, there is no "leap of faith" required to believe just this

Enoch wrote:

Likewise, it appears that you are committing the fallacy of "Argumentum ad Ignorantium," or argument from ignorance. "There is no proof that God exists, therefore he does not." Lack of proof does not constitute lack of existence.

No. You have not understood Argumentum ad Ignorantium. This would only apply in a neutral starting environment, and would only be a fallacy when it is used by an individual to dismiss one opinion of two in favour of another. For instance, you see a fight between Bob and Ben, and approach a person to ask them who started it. He says "There is no evidence that Bob started the fight, therefore Bob did not start the fight". Clearly Argumentum ad Ignorantium

In this situation, on whether atheism on the basis of no evidence is a fallacy, the answer is clearly no. This is because you have ignored presumption and probability.

Presumption: In a criminal trial, the accused is said to be "presumed innocent", and will not be "found guilty" until certainty beyond a reasonable doubt is achieved. Therefore it is not Argumentum ad Ignorantium to conclude something (innocence) based on lack of evidence.

Probability: At least in everyday language, the onus is on the man with the unusual or outlandish claim to prove his thesis, rather than the man with a reasonable or well established thesis to disprove it. If X says "I walked to the moon", it is ridiculous to accuse me of Argumentum ad Ignorantium when I reply "even though i have no evidence either way, i can be as certain that you didn't walk to the moon as any other empirical proposition"

Put simply, Argumentum ad Ignorantium does not apply because any reasonable person would presume atheism to start with (as i have been trying to say repeatedly with the giraffe) and place the onus on you to prove that God exists, since God not existing is far more believable

God existing is evidently far more believable, as far more people have believed it for a far longer time.

[Babylon_Horuv]

mODULAR mAN wrote: Enoch wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: I'll say it again. Every argument for god has been challenged and has proved wanting. It is up to theists to provide evidence for their claim.

"There could be a god" is not an argument, especially when virtually every counter to that "argument" shows that there can't be a god.


The bold part is what stands out to me the most. Why is it up to the religious to prove anything? I have no desire to prove to you that God exists. Don't believe? Fine, I don't care. In fact, I would venture to say that a great number of religious people feel this way. I don't recall seeing threads in here that attempt to prove God exists to the atheists. Yet, I have seen numerous threads from atheists attempting to disprove the beliefs of others. So, why are some atheists, such as yourself, so intent on "proving" their assertions by attempting to force us to prove ours?

Also, you say that there are arguments to show that there can't be a God? Fine, what are they? I'd really like to see those.

1. The burden of proof (or any evidence) is on the person who makes the extraordinary claim. Especially if you make assertions that affect society.

2. There are many arguments that disprove a god. It depends on the definiton. Provide a definition of a god and I'll show you the argument. Since there are thousands of god theories/hypothesis, I can't post them all here. Define your god hypothesis.

The claim that there is no god is the extraordinary claim. The assertion that there is no god has a strong effect on society.

[Babylon_Horuv]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Enoch wrote: It is a fallacy to claim that lack of evidence indicates lack of existence (stating that the lack of existence is fact). However, it is NOT a fallacy to claim that lack of evidence indicates improbability. I would accept your claim that "there is no evidence to prove the existence of God, therefore it is improbable that God exists," but that is not what you are claiming here. (If I am mistaken and that IS what you are claiming, I will concede that I misunderstood you.) You are claiming, from my understanding of your posts, that lack of evidence proves a factual claim of nonexistence. THAT is an argument from ignorance.

I am claiming it is certain only in the everyday use of that word, of course. What I am claiming with this though is that in 'philosophical' usage of the word certain, it is as certain as certain can be. My statement "God does not exist" is as certain as everything else that you take to be certain, but admit absolute knowledge can never be obtained on.

I am purposely leaving the door open to you here and admitting that knowledge of God is not absolutely certain, but am at the same time fully aware that should you walk through the door you would undermine the word certainty completely and show it has no meaning for anything at all. If you were to claim that the statement "elephants have feet" is uncertain, then by all means, say that the statement "God does not exist" is also uncertain. I cant believe you would, but if you did, my hands will go up - you win.

I take this position because they are both empirical statements about the world around us - if it is not possible for anyone or anything to empirically observe God, we can say She doesnt exist. To say otherwise, as I have previously said in another post, is to undermine our claim to all knowledge - to believe "what you see is what you get" does not require faith. (It also leads to absurdities - hello Santa Claus)

"elephants have feet" can, theoretically, be empirically disproven. If you were to gather together all elephants and examine them you could empirically observe wether or not they have feet. The same is not true of the existance of god.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Babylon_Horuv wrote:

God existing is evidently far more believable, as far more people have believed it for a far longer time.

Argumentum ad Populum

Besides, consider this Bertrand Russell quote:

The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence that it is not utterly absurd; indeed, in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.

Babylon_Horuv wrote:
The claim that there is no god is the extraordinary claim. The assertion that there is no god has a strong effect on society.

Argumentum ad Consequentiam !!

Wake Up

Babylon_Horuv wrote:

"elephants have feet" can, theoretically, be empirically disproven. If you were to gather together all elephants and examine them you could empirically observe wether or not they have feet. The same is not true of the existance of god.

Yes of course it can in theory. (Though if we were to hold to Argumentum ad Ignorantiam to such a strict degree as to be absurd and ridiculous, as enoch *appears* to be doing, then unless we literally had inspected ALL elephants, then we would have to reserve judgement). As for God, there is an important caveat that i gave when i said:

"if it is not possible for anyone or anything to empirically observe God, we can say She doesnt exist"

And it was this:

"To say otherwise... is to undermine our claim to all knowledge"

In other words, to get out of the situation you are presented with, i.e. that God cannot be empirically observed, you invent a critique which says that empirical observation in itself is flawed - or perhaps to be more accurate to the everyday beliefs of the religious - not completely sufficient. Such a position undermines all knowledge.

For instance, if i were to observe you and conclude "you are eating an apple" because i saw you eating an apple, you could reply "aah, but you are only using flawed human reasoning, in fact the apple is eating me". I have no retort. (i could reply, at best, that the vast majority agrees with me, therefore i must be right, but this of course would be Argumentum ad Populum, At worst, i could reply that you are a nutcase and mentally disturbed, but on this plea i am obviously just resorting to an Ad Hominem attack. All of this is, precisely, my whole point). To introduce 'supernatural reasoning' above 'human reasoning' leads, quite simply, to complete madness. In order to avoid such breathtaking absurdities, knowledge must be grounded in, and thus limited to, analytical proofs, empirical observations, and further types of evidence.

You might be able to understand the frustration of atheists when believers say such things as "Humans must reserve judgement on this or that, say whether the brutal murder of harmless women and children is evil , because human reasoning is flawed, and only God knows the Truth and thus the full story".Of what evidence to do have to disprove human reasoning is all we have?! "Human reasoning" is a tautology!

[Vexillum]

Babylon_Horuv wrote: "elephants have feet" can, theoretically, be empirically disproven. If you were to gather together all elephants and examine them you could empirically observe wether or not they have feet. The same is not true of the existance of god.

If you were to gather together all elephants? How do you know when you've accomplished that?

[Enoch]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Enoch wrote: It is a fallacy to claim that lack of evidence indicates lack of existence (stating that the lack of existence is fact). However, it is NOT a fallacy to claim that lack of evidence indicates improbability. I would accept your claim that "there is no evidence to prove the existence of God, therefore it is improbable that God exists," but that is not what you are claiming here. (If I am mistaken and that IS what you are claiming, I will concede that I misunderstood you.) You are claiming, from my understanding of your posts, that lack of evidence proves a factual claim of nonexistence. THAT is an argument from ignorance.

I am claiming it is certain only in the everyday use of that word, of course. What I am claiming with this though is that in 'philosophical' usage of the word certain, it is as certain as certain can be. My statement "God does not exist" is as certain as everything else that you take to be certain, but admit absolute knowledge can never be obtained on.

I am purposely leaving the door open to you here and admitting that knowledge of God is not absolutely certain, but am at the same time fully aware that should you walk through the door you would undermine the word certainty completely and show it has no meaning for anything at all. If you were to claim that the statement "elephants have feet" is uncertain, then by all means, say that the statement "God does not exist" is also uncertain. I cant believe you would, but if you did, my hands will go up - you win.

I take this position because they are both empirical statements about the world around us - if it is not possible for anyone or anything to empirically observe God, we can say She doesnt exist. To say otherwise, as I have previously said in another post, is to undermine our claim to all knowledge - to believe "what you see is what you get" does not require faith. (It also leads to absurdities - hello Santa Claus)

So, basically, you are saying that based on current levels of understanding and scientific testing, we can not prove the existence of God. That I will agree with. However, I will not go as far as to agree with your claim that we can take that to mean, with certainty, a lack of God's existence. When dealing with God, we can not prove nor disprove existence. It is, based on current levels of understanding and knowledge, an impossibility. Hence my contention that to claim empirical fact of God's nonexistence is fallacious.

[Babylon_Horuv]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Babylon_Horuv wrote:

God existing is evidently far more believable, as far more people have believed it for a far longer time.

Argumentum ad Populum

Besides, consider this Bertrand Russell quote:

The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence that it is not utterly absurd; indeed, in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.


All this establishes is a rather dim view of humanity. What other criteria is there for a claim being radical than that it is quite different than what most believe?
Quote:
Babylon_Horuv wrote:
The claim that there is no god is the extraordinary claim. The assertion that there is no god has a strong effect on society.

Argumentum ad Consequentiam !!

Wake Up

I am not arguing that there should be a god because if there isn't then society suffers. I am stating that the arguement that there is not a god is the more radical claim, and that accepting it requires a significant change in society. Which, according to the original poster, shifts the burden of proof to the atheist.
Quote:

Babylon_Horuv wrote:

"elephants have feet" can, theoretically, be empirically disproven. If you were to gather together all elephants and examine them you could empirically observe wether or not they have feet. The same is not true of the existance of god.

Yes of course it can in theory. (Though if we were to hold to Argumentum ad Ignorantiam to such a strict degree as to be absurd and ridiculous, as enoch *appears* to be doing, then unless we literally had inspected ALL elephants, then we would have to reserve judgement).

true enough, "All elephants have feet" and "no elephants have feet" would be very difficult to prove, however they could easily be disporven if one elephant was observed in violation of the assumption.

Quote:
As for God, there is an important caveat that i gave when i said:

"if it is not possible for anyone or anything to empirically observe God, we can say She doesnt exist"

I did not claim God could not be emprically observed. Many theists claim to have had a direct experience of God.

Quote:
And it was this:

"To say otherwise... is to undermine our claim to all knowledge"

In other words, to get out of the situation you are presented with, i.e. that God cannot be empirically observed, you invent a critique which says that empirical observation in itself is flawed - or perhaps to be more accurate to the everyday beliefs of the religious - not completely sufficient. Such a position undermines all knowledge.

For instance, if i were to observe you and conclude "you are eating an apple" because i saw you eating an apple, you could reply "aah, but you are only using flawed human reasoning, in fact the apple is eating me". I have no retort. (i could reply, at best, that the vast majority agrees with me, therefore i must be right, but this of course would be Argumentum ad Populum, At worst, i could reply that you are a nutcase and mentally disturbed, but on this plea i am obviously just resorting to an Ad Hominem attack. All of this is, precisely, my whole point). To introduce 'supernatural reasoning' above 'human reasoning' leads, quite simply, to complete madness. In order to avoid such breathtaking absurdities, knowledge must be grounded in, and thus limited to, analytical proofs, empirical observations, and further types of evidence.

You might be able to understand the frustration of atheists when believers say such things as "Humans must reserve judgement on this or that, say whether the brutal murder of harmless women and children is evil , because human reasoning is flawed, and only God knows the Truth and thus the full story".Of what evidence to do have to disprove human reasoning is all we have?! "Human reasoning" is a tautology!

[mODULAR mAN]

Babylon_Horuv wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: Enoch wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: I'll say it again. Every argument for god has been challenged and has proved wanting. It is up to theists to provide evidence for their claim.

"There could be a god" is not an argument, especially when virtually every counter to that "argument" shows that there can't be a god.


The bold part is what stands out to me the most. Why is it up to the religious to prove anything? I have no desire to prove to you that God exists. Don't believe? Fine, I don't care. In fact, I would venture to say that a great number of religious people feel this way. I don't recall seeing threads in here that attempt to prove God exists to the atheists. Yet, I have seen numerous threads from atheists attempting to disprove the beliefs of others. So, why are some atheists, such as yourself, so intent on "proving" their assertions by attempting to force us to prove ours?

Also, you say that there are arguments to show that there can't be a God? Fine, what are they? I'd really like to see those.

1. The burden of proof (or any evidence) is on the person who makes the extraordinary claim. Especially if you make assertions that affect society.

2. There are many arguments that disprove a god. It depends on the definiton. Provide a definition of a god and I'll show you the argument. Since there are thousands of god theories/hypothesis, I can't post them all here. Define your god hypothesis.

The claim that there is no god is the extraordinary claim. The assertion that there is no god has a strong effect on society.

Indeed, as so any policy decision should be argued by its own merits to humanity. I assume we both agree humanity exists? Perhaps we can also agree that, say, homosexuality and marriage exist, too.

So, whether or not a god exists need not even come into play.

[Babylon_Horuv]

mODULAR mAN wrote: Babylon_Horuv wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: Enoch wrote: mODULAR mAN wrote: I'll say it again. Every argument for god has been challenged and has proved wanting. It is up to theists to provide evidence for their claim.

"There could be a god" is not an argument, especially when virtually every counter to that "argument" shows that there can't be a god.


The bold part is what stands out to me the most. Why is it up to the religious to prove anything? I have no desire to prove to you that God exists. Don't believe? Fine, I don't care. In fact, I would venture to say that a great number of religious people feel this way. I don't recall seeing threads in here that attempt to prove God exists to the atheists. Yet, I have seen numerous threads from atheists attempting to disprove the beliefs of others. So, why are some atheists, such as yourself, so intent on "proving" their assertions by attempting to force us to prove ours?

Also, you say that there are arguments to show that there can't be a God? Fine, what are they? I'd really like to see those.

1. The burden of proof (or any evidence) is on the person who makes the extraordinary claim. Especially if you make assertions that affect society.

2. There are many arguments that disprove a god. It depends on the definiton. Provide a definition of a god and I'll show you the argument. Since there are thousands of god theories/hypothesis, I can't post them all here. Define your god hypothesis.

The claim that there is no god is the extraordinary claim. The assertion that there is no god has a strong effect on society.

Indeed, as so any policy decision should be argued by its own merits to humanity. I assume we both agree humanity exists? Perhaps we can also agree that, say, homosexuality and marriage exist, too.

So, whether or not a god exists need not even come into play.

Well, my God is in favor of homosexual marraige.

[cap'n queasy]

Quote: Why do you guys always resort to Ad Hom's?

This from someone who rarely makes a post that isn't an Ad Hominem attack.

:lol: