Irony of the evolutionary belief

[YoursTrue]

No, it is not. He was pointing out that even if a God exists we know nothing about it. That puts the burden of proof upon those claiming that a God exists.

No, sorry -- it puts the burden of proof to those who claim God does NOT exist. Sorry, but that's the way it is. You and those like you will bring out what you think is wrong with the Bible. I won't say I understand everything. But that does not show that God does not exist, only that you believe there are contradictions or myths in the Bible. So -- I can see the way it goes -- a person claims God does not exist because perhaps of several things. I'll let them explain, if they desire to. And after that, could be that next will be Biblical discussion after they say WHY they believe there is no God. Unless, of course, it might be "Spinoza's God," as in essence, or perhaps disappearing universe.
We can continue our conversation perhaps about evolution and what people including scientists and those findings they put forth if you'd like.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, it is not. He was pointing out that even if a God exists we know nothing about it. That puts the burden of proof upon those claiming that a God exists.

Again -- re-reading this, the burden of proof of the claim that we know nothing about it rests on those who say we know nothing about it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

it puts the burden of proof to those who claim God does NOT exist.

But that's not what was said. This is: "What are the odds of an imaginary team winning a game that isn't known to exist? That's God."

Not known to exist does not mean the same as known to not exist. A pithy was to say that is that not believing is not the same as believing not. Saying that one doesn't believe that gods exist (the definition of atheist) is not saying that he believes that they don't.

Also, here the thing about burden of "proof." There needs to be three elements present. One, a claim of fact is made, two, one wants to be believed, and three, he is dealing with somebody capable of recognizing a sound argument and willing to change his mind when he does.

Most creationists fail the third part. We need a skilled critical thinker with the temperament and disposition of an avid and apt student, listening open-mindedly and dispassionately, and qualified to identify a sound argument. Creationists look for ways to not do that. Their minds are closed, and they often labor encased in a faith-based confirmation bias that reject such arguments as soon as they see what is being argued for.

 

[Pogo]

Again -- re-reading this, the burden of proof of the claim that we know nothing about it rests on those who say we know nothing about it.

First of all it wasn't about whether god exists or not, it was about the probability that a god exists. The simple fact is that without some evidence to base a probability on, one cannot calculate a probability and just because the question can be posed with only two alternatives does not mean that there are equal chances for either alternative.
Which leaves us with there being no evidence for a god, there is no way to assign a probability for its existence any more than it is possible to give a probability of leprechauns.

 

[YoursTrue]

First of all it wasn't about whether god exists or not, it was about the probability that a god exists. The simple fact is that without some evidence to base a probability on, one cannot calculate a probability and just because the question can be posed with only two alternatives does not mean that there are equal chances for either alternative.
Which leaves us with there being no evidence for a god, there is no way to assign a probability for its existence any more than it is possible to give a probability of leprechauns.

big deal. or not a big deal. You can't prove God does not exist either way. Scientifically or not scientifically. And you also cannot do that with evolution, even if you and others think you can, you cannot. But if you want to keep trying to show that life as we know it came about by evolution, hey be my guest.

 

[Valjean]

OK, I read your response again due to your friend Pogo's response and attitude, and the point is aptly made as to whether anyone can prove there is no God. OK? By the way, that was a good point insofar as I am concerned. Take care.

As you've been told many times, the burden of proof is on the claimant. If the claimant can't supply sufficient evidence in support of the claim, the claim's rejected. There's no logical need to disprove it.
My inability to disprove leprechauns isn't evidence that leprechauns might exist.

 

[Valjean]

big deal. or not a big deal. You can't prove God does not exist either way. Scientifically or not scientifically. And you also cannot do that with evolution, even if you and others think you can, you cannot. But if you want to keep trying to show that life as we know it came about by evolution, hey be my guest.

Apples and oranges.
Evolution is extensively evidenced. God is not.

 

[sayak83]

No, sorry -- it puts the burden of proof to those who claim God does NOT exist. Sorry, but that's the way it is. You and those like you will bring out what you think is wrong with the Bible. I won't say I understand everything. But that does not show that God does not exist, only that you believe there are contradictions or myths in the Bible. So -- I can see the way it goes -- a person claims God does not exist because perhaps of several things. I'll let them explain, if they desire to. And after that, could be that next will be Biblical discussion after they say WHY they believe there is no God. Unless, of course, it might be "Spinoza's God," as in essence, or perhaps disappearing universe.
We can continue our conversation perhaps about evolution and what people including scientists and those findings they put forth if you'd like.

This is actually mistaken. Every positive claim is false by default unless shown otherwise by supporting evidence.
This can be shown very simply.
For every thing X that does exist or is the state of affairs, there are an infinite number of Y alternative possibilities that could have existed or could been the state of affairs but is not actualized in reality. So without supporting evidence, the default probability for any positive claim to be true is vanishingly small while the default probability of the corresponding negative claim to be true is very close to 1.
Hence the laws of logic dictates that a claim like "X exists" is to be considered false unless properly justifies by evidence. On the contrary a claim like "X does not exist" does not require any evidential backing initially.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, sorry -- it puts the burden of proof to those who claim God does NOT exist. Sorry, but that's the way it is. You and those like you will bring out what you think is wrong with the Bible. I won't say I understand everything. But that does not show that God does not exist, only that you believe there are contradictions or myths in the Bible. So -- I can see the way it goes -- a person claims God does not exist because perhaps of several things. I'll let them explain, if they desire to. And after that, could be that next will be Biblical discussion after they say WHY they believe there is no God. Unless, of course, it might be "Spinoza's God," as in essence, or perhaps disappearing universe.
We can continue our conversation perhaps about evolution and what people including scientists and those findings they put forth if you'd like.

Once again you are misreading it. Where does he say that God does not exist? It was very clear that he did not say that. Perhaps you did not understand the silly argument that he referred to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is actually mistaken. Every positive claim is false by default unless shown otherwise by supporting evidence.
This can be shown very simply.
For every thing X that does exist or is the state of affairs, there are an infinite number of Y alternative possibilities that could have existed or could been the state of affairs but is not actualized in reality. So without supporting evidence, the default probability for any positive claim to be true is vanishingly small while the default probability of the corresponding negative claim to be true is very close to 1.
Hence the laws of logic dictates that a claim like "X exists" is to be considered false unless properly justifies by evidence. On the contrary a claim like "X does not exist" does not require any evidential backing initially.

I am going to have to disagree with you somewhat on this. One can easily show that a lack of belief in a god is rational. But to absolutely say that there is no god. But here is the problem, @TagliatelliMonster 's post did not assert that no god exists. It was misread by both @leroy and @YoursTrue . The nonexistent teams was not a reference to God. The "winning a game that isn't known to exist" did.

 

[Pogo]

This is actually mistaken. Every positive claim is false by default unless shown otherwise by supporting evidence.
This can be shown very simply.
For every thing X that does exist or is the state of affairs, there are an infinite number of Y alternative possibilities that could have existed or could been the state of affairs but is not actualized in reality. So without supporting evidence, the default probability for any positive claim to be true is vanishingly small while the default probability of the corresponding negative claim to be true is very close to 1.
Hence the laws of logic dictates that a claim like "X exists" is to be considered false unless properly justifies by evidence. On the contrary a claim like "X does not exist" does not require any evidential backing initially.

Thank you, that is the probability argument I was trying to articulate for @leroy.
Mind if I copy it to him?

 

[leroy]

Your reading comprehension is off again. What did he say exactly that has a big burden of proof?

God is imaginary, that is his positive claim with a big burden proof

 

[Pogo]

God is imaginary, that is his positive claim with a big burden proof

Show us where he claimed specifically that, not using examples like leprechauns as similar ideas that are things we can imagine.

 

[Valjean]

God is imaginary, that is his positive claim with a big burden proof

"God is imaginary" asserts that the concept exists in your head. It's not necessarily assert that God does not exist.
"God is imaginary" is a logical corollary of "You have not yet met your burden."

 

[Subduction Zone]

God is imaginary, that is his positive claim with a big burden proof

He probably is. But that was not what @TagliatelliMonster was saying.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am going to have to disagree with you somewhat on this. One can easily show that a lack of belief in a god is rational. But to absolutely say that there is no god. But here is the problem, @TagliatelliMonster 's post did not assert that no god exists. It was misread by both @leroy and @YoursTrue . The nonexistent teams was not a reference to God. The "winning a game that isn't known to exist" did.

When I was in college I decided to listen to a lecture on philosophy, something I was not too familiar with. I found it incomprehensible. But that's ok. Because listening to some here, it truly is utterly incomprehensible. Anyway, thanks.

 

[YoursTrue]

Show us where he claimed specifically that, not using examples like leprechauns as similar ideas that are things we can imagine.

Why? Do you believe that God is imaginary in a similar way to leprechauns?

 

[YoursTrue]

Thank you, that is the probability argument I was trying to articulate for @leroy.
Mind if I copy it to him?

There are claims that evolution is true as if life came about in all its forms by "natural selection." Other than imaginings, there is nothing to support that. Furthermore, citing science reports won't help you unless you get the real deal from the scientist himself. Not to say the scientists lie, but saying that unless you know exactly how they came about their conclusions, there's nothing to say.

 

[The Hammer]

Why? Do you believe that God is imaginary in a similar way to leprechauns?

Why do you believe that Leprechaun's aren't real in the same way as God?

 

[YoursTrue]

Why do you believe that Leprechaun's aren't real in the same way as God?

excuse me? do you believe leprechauns are real? If not, why not?