Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[Sheldon]

Subduction Zone said: ↑
The two m words are synonymous.

NO. I know better my God than any disbeliever on Earth.

This has nothing to do with what you imagine a deity is or does, it is two simple word definitions, that despite being obviously synonymous, offend your religious sensibilities.

Miracles, and magic are synonymous words, whether you like it or not, and this has been amply demonstrated several times.

Look, who knows better of driving: driver, or non-driver?
Better of fighting: fighter, or non-fighter? Believer knows more of belief, than non-believer.

What is a more unbiased reference of word definitions, you or a dictionary?

 

[Sheldon]

If we define God as the timeless, spaceless consciousness that created the universe, then such a being is logically impossible.

Nope, since you just made several unevidenced assumptions about the nature of the deity you're arguing for, these are called begging the question fallacies, and it is a basic principle of logic, that nothing can be asserted as rational if it contains a known logical fallacy. So your first sentence made your argument illogical.

 

[questfortruth]

Sorry, but you cannot claim that God is Existent until you prove that he exists. This would be a begging the question fallacy on your part.

Peace, brother.
There are two gods. Both gods are present out there.
The satan is present, but non-existent.
Any god, whom a human has, tells the human all he must know about the world.
Ones, who have satan as their main authority, are being told by satan, that there is no satan, nor God, and what homosexuality has rights.

 

[Sheldon]

So how do like this little game of pigeon chess?

It can be a bit tedious, but over the years I have got a feel for dealing with creationists, and I don't get all bent out of shape when they make ludicrous claims or deny obvious facts. Flat earthers and creationists can be quite funny sometimes, albeit unintentionally.

 

[Sheldon]

All I am saying is that if we postulate the existence of God some unsolved mysteries would be solved.

Nope, unevidenced assumptions don't solve or explain mysteries, that is axiomatic. I believe this has already been pointed out to you several times now.

If we postulate the existence of stegosaurus living today, no mysteries would be solved.

Nope, that's still untrue as well, since as was previously pointed out there are many things we still are learning about Stegosaurus, and I even linked some new discoveries made from the study of their fossilised remains, of course you just ignored that article from Princeton, but hey ho.

The point is that God snd stegosaurus are not analogous. (As was suggested a few comments ago)

And I still agree, since we know one existed from sufficient objective evidence, and have no objective evidence the other is real, or even that a deity is possible. As was pointed out previously.

 

[Sheldon]

There is no evidence that such fossils have ever been produced.

Other than the complete fossilised Stegosaurus skeleton assembled and on display in the Natural History Museum you mean? Oh and the 80 other specimens that have been identified by palaeontologists globally of course, as I also pointed out, but which you waved away with the ludicrous falsehood it was "just a claim".

I think I will stick with the science on this, and lend no credence to the denials of a creationist.

 

[Sheldon]

Peace, brother.

I think you mean peace.

There are two gods. Both gods are present out there.
The satan is present, but non-existent.Any god, whom a human has, tells the human all he must know about the world.Ones, who have satan as their main authority, are being told by satan, that there is no satan, nor God, and what homosexuality has rights.

Those are the same bare subjective assertions that were just pointed out to you as meaningless.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

to say "I believe X to be true and correct" means that I presume that everyone else ought to agree that X is true and correct.

When I say that I presume that X is correct, what I mean is that it has predictive power. That compels me to be a strict empiricist - I cannot call anything correct that I cannot demonstrate accurately maps a portion of reality in a way that allows me to correctly anticipate outcomes better than competing ideas.

I don't presume that all others will process information the way I do, nor come to the same conclusions I do if they don't, but I do expect others who do evaluate evidence critically to arrive at the same conclusions as all others who use that prescribed, constrained method. I've used the example of addition before, which is pure reason, and always generates correct sums when properly applied. By analogy, I don't expect everybody that tries to add these numbers to come to that same conclusion (sum), but I do expect that everybody who rigorously applies the laws of addition to arrive at the same sum.

Consider the matter of the relative dangers of the vaccine and the virus. I have looked at the morbidity and mortality data for each, and formed a belief. Those who evaluate evidence the way I do will come to the same belief. But as is obviously the case, many use another method - faith - to make this decision. They believe what they choose to believe despite contradictory data. So, to address your comment again, I think that the virus is more dangerous than the vaccine because that is the sound conclusion one derives from reviewing the data, and that everybody is better off f they think critically, in which case they would come to the same conclusion, but I also know that many won't, and I consider them to be taking a needles risk.

there is little point in debating people's personal beliefs, while what they assert to be a universal truth does place an expectation of the burden of proof for such an assertion. And that we can discuss and debate because the truth being asserted is supposedly universal, and therefor available to me, as well.

Yes. That is why only arguments are worth considering, not bare claims, which are just opinions until they are supported with argument and evidence, the conclusions drawn from which can be agreed with or rebutted.

It's why atheism as "non-belief only" is such an idiotic, annoying, and pointless definition. No one cares what an atheist doesn't believe.

Except that atheism is a non-belief derived from two beliefs and the source of no others. The two beliefs - an idea not be believed unless it is sufficiently supported, and the idea of a deity existing doesn't meet that standard. Ergo, agnostic atheism. It's certainly a valid syllogism, and if its premises are correct, it's conclusion is sound. And from this lack of belief in gods, no other belief derives. Not that one should be good or kind. Not that man is immortal. Not that peace is preferable to war. Not that the sky is blue. Not that cigarettes are harmful. Not that dogs get fleas. Not one single belief is derived from the lack of belief in gods.

My worldview, secular humanism, also does not derive from my lack of a god belief. My atheism makes room from it, but secular humanism is the result of the application of reason to experience and empathy (Golden Rule). That's it. Have I mentioned that years after I left Christianity, I discovered the term secular humanism, and read its affirmations, I thought, "Lookie there. That's me." I had derived the same principles in the manner just described - critical analysis and rational ethics. What better confirmation could I have had that I was on the right track? These people have taken this same journey before me and arrived at the same place. It's as meaningful as arriving at a mathematical sum and then seeing that others got to the same answer independently.

Same thing happened with the Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism. It's the natural offspring of reason applied to decency and experience.

And perhaps you should consider other language than idiotic, annoying, and pointless. That you don't understand these things after reading them repeatedly doesn't make THEM idiotic, nor pointless. It's only pointless to one unable to understand it. Common sense should tell you that if so many experienced critical thinkers are telling you the same thing and you still consider it pointless and idiotic, that the problem is not with them.

Being annoyed is also on you.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

In the case of God, there are many things that have no explanation , that that could be explained if God exists. … (the fine tuning of the universe would be an example)

Can you explain why an omnipotent deity would be constrained to the parameters of fine tuning (rhetorical question needing no answer, since none is possible)?

Why would such a deity need to finely tune the laws of nature unless it was being restricted by some higher laws beyond its control? What created the laws that govern the necessity for god to fine tune the laws of nature? And how could such a God be called omnipotent?

If one accepts that there is a fine tuning problem, the multiverse hypothesis solves the problem more parsimoniously (no intelligent designer required)

All I am saying is that stegosaurus and god are not analogous. 1 there are many things that lack an explanation 2 non of those things would be explained if we postulate the existence of a stegosaurus

If one was constrained by reason and evidence, then I agree that cosmogenesis and magic are beyond what we would expect of a stegosaurus. But if we give ourselves the freedom the theists give themselves, and no longer constrain ourselves at all, we can postulate a universe-creating stegosaurus, which explains everything as well as a god hypothesis. The stegosaurus did it.

Okkkk so you are providing good reasons for why my grand ma could have been mistaken... you are providing an alternative explanation and showing that it is a better explanation. As an atheist you are expected to do the same with the arguments for the existence of God that you know about.

All of the arguments for God that I've seen have been rebutted, which includes the classic arguments, which rebuttals are readily available on the Internet, and the many arguments advanced here on RF.

there is no hypothesis of God's non-existence in Science yet.

Do you consider that meaningful? Are you expecting one? Science makes hypotheses to attempt to explain observable phenomena. Even were science to completely fill in all of the gaps and account for reality without deities, we still wouldn't expect it to comment on gods.

Hence, it is unscientific to say: "I am atheist."

Is the comment falsifiable? If so, it is scientific.

Also, your argument is flawed. That there is no god hypothesis in science does not weaken the atheist's position.

But I suspect that you're arguing against gnostic atheism, in which case your statement is correct if you change unscientific to illogical and atheist to gnostic atheist, but this also is not dependent on scientific hypotheses.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

He doesn't even need to, they have a website, I posted links to the evidence

Ow please!!!! It's all PHOTOSHOP!!

FAKE NEWS!!!11!!11eleventyone

Except their stupidity was cute as hell, whereas creationist denials of this ilk are just pathetic.

yes, it's deeply unsettling.

 

[questfortruth]

there is no god hypothesis in science

P vs NP Millennium Prize Problem.

 

[leroy]

Fine tuned is just a subjective expression, it's not like we have any other universes to compare this one to, and even were we to accept this loaded expression, you have no explanation either, goddidit using inexplicable magic is not an explanation, it's a bare unevidenced claim.

That simply shows your lack of understanding of FT.

To say that gravity is FT simply means that if gravity would have been a little bit stronger or weaker, life would have been impossible.

1 this is objectively true, or in any case it would be objectively wrong (there is nothing subjective there)

2 this is true independently if there are other universes

So if you don’t understand the FT argument, then you should adopt a position of agnosticism “I don’t know if the argument is good or not, because I don’t understand it”

 

[leroy]

I r after your denials that the Natural History Museum have a complete fossilised Stegosaurus skeleton on display.

e.

How do you know it´s authentic?

All you have is testimonials from people who claim that it is authentic-….. and testominies are ot evidence (are they?)

 

[leroy]

Still not true.

<EVIDENCE>

Really so videos and animations made in Photoshop are now evidence?

 

[leroy]

Other than the complete fossilised Stegosaurus skeleton assembled and on display in the Natural History Museum you mean? Oh and the 80 other specimens that have been identified by palaeontologists globally of course, as I also pointed out, but which you waved away with the ludicrous falsehood it was "just a claim".

I think I will stick with the science on this, and lend no credence to the denials of a creationist.

Again how do you know that any of the 80 specimens are authentic?...... there is no evidence

Except for assertions and testimonies from people that claim to have found and studied the fossil, buuuuuuuuuuut as far as I know assertions are not evidence.

Or perhaps I am wrong, perhaps testimonies are evidence………… ¿are testimonies evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Peace, brother.
There are two gods. Both gods are present out there.
The satan is present, but non-existent.
Any god, whom a human has, tells the human all he must know about the world.
Ones, who have satan as their main authority, are being told by satan, that there is no satan, nor God, and what homosexuality has rights.

Pure drivel and nonsense.

 

[leroy]

Can you explain why an omnipotent deity would be constrained to the parameters of fine tuning (rhetorical question needing no answer, since none is possible)?

Irrelevant, all I am saying is that an omnipotent God (if he exists) can create gravity (and other constants) ,

Why would such a deity need to finely tune the laws of nature unless it was being restricted by some higher laws beyond its control? What created the laws that govern the necessity for god to fine tune the laws of nature? And how could such a God be called omnipotent?

Nobody is claiming that God is constrained to create those laws, all I am saying is that he can create them if he wants … god can create a FT universe if he wants (God could have also descided not to create a FT universe)

If one accepts that there is a fine tuning problem, the multiverse hypothesis solves the problem more parsimoniously (no intelligent designer required)

Well I disagree, but I liked your direct response…………(many atheist form this forum could learn much from you)

All of the arguments for God that I've seen have been rebutted, which includes the classic arguments, which rebuttals are readily available on the Internet, and the many arguments advanced here on RF.

I haven have seen such refutations.

 

[leroy]

Can y


If one accepts that there is a fine tuning problem, the multiverse hypothesis solves the problem more parsimoniously (no intelligent designer required)

I have many objections to the multiverse alternative, but of all the objections I think there is a knock down argument that completely devastated the “multiverse”

The bolzman brian paradox destroys the multiverse hypothesis.

“if there is a multiverse, each universe with its own “values” then the vas majority of observers would be Boltzmann brains.”

This would imply that you are a Boltzmann Brain. (BB)

Given that presumably you are not a BB the multiverse hypothesis fails.

The argument

P1 If the multiverse hypothesis is true you would be a BB

P2 you are not a BB

Therefore the multiverse hypothesis is not true.

Given that you don’t seem to have a devastating objection against “God” then God is a better explanation.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really so videos and animations made in Photoshop are now evidence?

It is pointless for you to demand evidence that you cannot understand and can only deny. Photoshop is more than enough.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

all I am saying is that an omnipotent God (if he exists) can create gravity (and other constants)

You said more than that. You wrote, "In the case of God, there are many things that have no explanation , that that could be explained if God exists. … (the fine tuning of the universe would be an example)" I asked why an omnipotent God would need to fine tune a universe. I argued that the very concept implies that God is constrained to set the constants of the universe according to rules that transcend its power, just like man.

Nobody is claiming that God is constrained to create those laws

Anybody who claims that the universe requires fine tuning is claiming that nature could not contain stable galaxies of solar systems containing conscious life had the physical constants been slightly different. It's an answer to the anthropic principle, which asks what kind of universe would you expect self-aware intelligent life to arise in? It asks how such a universe could exist if its existence is extremely unlikely. The answers have to be either that there is no fine tuning problem, universes are not created finely tuned but instead evolve under some pressure to become finely tuned just as matter is not initially finely tuned to be living but instead naturally tends toward that state, that there was an intelligent designer, or that there was a multiverse capable of generating all possible universes in copious supply like the stars in the sky and it was inevitable that some would be finely tuned for life and mind without an intelligent designer.

I haven have seen such refutations.

Here's a summary of several of the classical arguments for God: Understanding (and Refuting) the Arguments for God - Big Think

“if there is a multiverse, each universe with its own “values” then the vas majority of observers would be Boltzmann brains.”

I don't know why you put that in quotes. It look like it's your words. Furthermore, it's not a valid argument. The conclusion doesn't follow from what preceded it (non sequitur). There is nothing there that prevents a multiverse from existing, or from producing a universe just like this one.

many atheist form this forum could learn much from you

Thank you, but they seem to be doing pretty much the same I am.

Judging by your avatar, it looks like you're a Pinky and the Brain fan. If so, you might enjoy seeing these collected together.

Brain: Are you pondering what I'm pondering?

Pinky: "Sure, Brain, but how are we going to find chaps our size?

"I think so, Brain, but this time you put the trousers on the chimp.

"I think so, Brain, but where will we find a duck and a hose at this hour?

"Well I think so, Brain, but if we didn't have ears, we'd look like weasels.

"Well, I think so, Brain, but where do you stick the feather and call it macaroni?"

"I think so, Brain, but burlap chafes me so."

"I think so, Brain, but me and Pippi Longstocking... I mean, what would the children look like?"

"I think so, Brain, but this time, you wear the tutu."

"I think so, Brain, but isn't Regis Philbin already married?"

"Uh... yeah, Brain, but where are we going to find rubber pants our size?"

"I think so, Brain, but culottes have a tendency to ride up so."

"I think so, but where will we find an open tattoo parlor at this time of night?"

"I think so, Brain, but if they called them sad meals, kids wouldn't buy them."

"Uh, I think so, Brain, but we'll never get a monkey to use dental floss."

"Well, I think so, Brain, but I can't memorize a whole opera in Yiddish."​

******

In case you didn't know, my avatar is Grateful Dead iconography, from the back cover of an album called Bear's Choice. The little bears are marching around the center: