Burden of Proof is on Atheists

[leroy]

Oh please. What a series of weak excuses. Can't you reason at all? For God claims you need some strong objective evidence.

see my point @9-10ths_Penguin
Usually atheist don’t like to explain what they mean by evidence.

I told you I do consider the historical documents in the new testament as evidence for the resurrection .

It is your turn to explain, why is it that you don’t consider them evidence……………….. what do you mean by evidence (in the context of events that happened in the past) and why is it that the NT fisl to be evidence?

 

[leroy]

I never remotely claimed that "all conclusions are subjective", it's yet another of your tediously dishonest straw men. Read what I said again, and see if you have an honest response that remotely addresses what I said.





Then why the histrionics denying your interpretation was just an unevidenced subjective opinion?E]

Yes all interpretations by definition are “subjective”………what’s your point?

The evidence is objective

The interpretation of the evidence is subjective…….I am kind od lost, what’s your point?.........that my interpretation is “wrong” (or invalid) just because its subjective?

With your unevidenced assumption that the universe needed a (deity) creator to "fine tune" it

It´s not an assumption, it´s the conclusion of the argument, which is based on premises that have been supported.

Your burden is to explain which of the premises is wrong and why.

When you offer anything beyond your bare assumption, then I will happily address it. My response can only address what you post, not what you think.

Well then do it, address the argument. (particular the version that WLC defends),,,,,,,,,,,

The argument is not

the universe is FT therefore it was design. But rather justification and steps are given to arrive at that conclusion, you are expected to spot the mistakes and expalin why is that a mistake.

There is no objective evidenced the universe was designed or created,

How can I ever know, if you are not willing to define evidence, nor to expalin what would you accept as evidence?

and fine tuned is simply a term applied to how narrow some aspects of the universe are, and the fact that if they were altered even by a miniscule amount, then the organic carbon based life that we see couldn't exist. The term is not evidence that was in fact fine tuned, anymore than the big bang theory is evidence of a big bang.

Which is a pathetic and dishonest strawman that simply shows that you don’t understand the argument,,,,,,,,,,, nobody claims that FT means design…..

 

[leroy]

Ofcourse i dont understand what evidence means (according to atheists) that is why I keep asking @Sheldon to explain what he means by evidence so that I can judge if something counts as evidenc or not.........

You know what evidence means, it's in the dictionary, I have even posted the definition for you since you seem unable or unwilling to Google it yourself. This tedious canard is fooling no one.



No, you were told that claims and assertions alone, are not sufficient or objective evidence.



That's not all science has though, as has been made clear, you just keep dishonestly misrepresenting the case. As another poster pointed out, you seem to think such duplicity is a clever argument, you're wrong. However if you want to deny Stegosaurs existed, then crack on, why would I care if you wish to appear ridiculous. [/QUOTE]
I don’t deny that stegosaurs ever existed,

But all we have to verify the authenticity of the fossils are testimonies and assertions, so by your rules , there is no evidence for authentic stegosaurus fossils.

 

[leroy]

I already posted links to scientific discoveries of fossils, for over 80 Stegosaur samples, including a fully constructed skeleton in the Natural History museum. You either accept scientific integrity or you don't, you seem to want to choose the latter, as if this somehow lessens the burden of proof for your superstitious beliefs. Like people who hold unevidenced subjective beliefs, claiming all beliefs are subjective, as if this lends theirs some credence.

Yes and all we have are testimonies and claims from people who claim to have found and studied those fossils.

So by your rules, there is no evidence

 

[leroy]

I didn't mention a Stegosaur, nor was I implying any analogy with one? Is English your first language?

No but you jumped to the conversation about stegosaurs. (and I assumed that you understood the context before participating in the conversation)

 

[leroy]

The word is in the dictionary, but just presenting the most compelling reason for holding the belief, would seem to be a pretty obvious first step.

see my point @9-10ths_Penguin ?

Athesist demand for evidence, but they refuse to explain what they mean by evidence.

 

[leroy]

It might have been the first time, but since it has been answered innumerable times, it now just appears like dishonest obfuscation.

Evidence is adequately defined in the dictionary, as is the word objective, whether others agree that what you have presented is sufficient to support the claim or belief doesn't alter those definitions. Some people find the concept of debate a little challenging, but this is a debate forum. Not everyone has to agree, in fact disagreement is a basic prerequisite for debate.

All I am asking is for a method / criteria that would allow me to test if something would count as evidence or not

 

[leroy]

Pleas


It is a scientific fact that Stegosaurs once existed. .

No that is a subjective interpretation. (which is ok and good enough for me) but apparently you have problems with subjective interpretations.

 

[leroy]

Well the one I have subtly emboldened in red above seems to qualify, as it is not even remotely true. Unless of course you think science accepts the existence of a deity? That might explain a lot actually, is that what you're claiming?

1 You have asserted that testimonies and assertions don’t count as evidence


2 all we have are claims and testimonies from people who claim that those fossils are authentic

So by your rules we don’t have evidence for authentic stegosaurus fossils.

 

[leroy]

Th
Theism is also an unfalsifiable concept,

So is naturalism……….so what’s your point?

though not all their claims are of course. All scientific ideas must be falsifiable, it's an essential requirement. Unfalsifiable ideas or claims are rejected as unscientific.

The claim “God is the best explanation for the FT of the universe” is falsifiable all you have to do is find a better explanation

 

[leroy]

Still not true. Unless you think palaeontology is not subject to the same methodological and ethical practice and scrutiny as other scientific fields? Or maybe you think all science is just bare subjective claims? Is that what you're saying?

A big part of science is subjective,

Facts, formulas, theorems etc. are objective.

Interpretations, explanations , conclusions, etc are subjective

This is how science works and you seem to be the only one who thinks that “subjective stuff” is intrinsically bad,.
or invalid

 

[leroy]

Wow, evidence need not be compelling, it might be insufficient to support a conclusion. For a start testimonials, as you yourself imply here, are not all given equal credence, if I testify that I can fly, but only when no one can detect it, is that testimony equally as valid as a scientific consensus that Stegosaurs existed?



How compelling would depend on a whole host of other factors, the claim belief or conclusion being made, the credibility of the person(s) giving the testimony, the objective evidence supporting their testimony etc etc etc...we don't just have bare subjective claims that Stegosaurs once existed.


s.

ok so testimonies count as strong evindce if:

1 other independent testimonies confirm the same thing

2 its consistent with current knowledge

3 has explanatory power

4 has explanatory scope

5 the one who is making the testimony has nothing to win by lying

6 the guy making the testimony claims to be sure

So if a testimony has all (or most of these 6 points) we can call it strong evidence, if a testimony fails at most of this points, we can call it week evidence.(but still evidence in ether case)

But in general all testimonies count as evidence, (just not strong evidence in all the cases)

AT this point do you agree?………… woud lyou add or remove any of the 6 poitns in the list?

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑

I never remotely claimed that "all conclusions are subjective", it's yet another of your tediously dishonest straw men. Read what I said again, and see if you have an honest response that remotely addresses what I said.

Yes all interpretations by definition are “subjective”………what’s your point?

My point is you assigned a claim to me I never made, you said that: you agreed with me that all conclusions are subjective, even though I have never made any such assertion, nor do I agree with it at all. The conclusion that the earth is not flat is not subjective, since the shape of the earth is no influenced by anyone's opinion, ipso facto it is an objective fact that the world is not flat, and the ancient Greeks found an entirely objective test to falsify the claim.

It´s not an assumption, it´s the conclusion of the argument, which is based on premises that have been supported.

A conclusion can be assumptive, and yours is, since there is no objective evidence the universe is fine tuned, or designed.

Your burden is to explain which of the premises is wrong and why.

You offered no premises, merely pointed to a scientific fact, and made the bare assumption it must require a designer, I don't agree with your conclusion since it does not follow, why would it?

Sheldon
When you offer anything beyond your bare assumption, then I will happily address it. My response can only address what you post, not what you think.

Well then do it, address the argument. (particular the version that WLC defends),,,,,,,,,,,
The argument is not

the universe is FT therefore it was design. But rather justification and steps are given to arrive at that conclusion, you are expected to spot the mistakes and explain why is that a mistake.

I addressed what you presented, as I explained. If you want me to address more then present it.

Sheldon
There is no objective evidenced the universe was designed or created,

How can I ever know, if you are not willing to define evidence, nor to expalin what would you accept as evidence?

You want to explain to you what you should offer as evidence for your beliefs? That is preposterous. I have told you innumerable times that I base belief on sufficient objective evidence, at the very least if you don't have any, then present the most compelling reason you have. If it the fine tuning argument then no I don't find that compelling at all, since it simply assumes the universe can't have happened without a creator / designer.

Sheldon
and fine tuned is simply a term applied to how narrow some aspects of the universe are, and the fact that if they were altered even by a miniscule amount, then the organic carbon based life that we see couldn't exist. The term is not evidence that was in fact fine tuned, anymore than the big bang theory is evidence of a big bang.

Which is a pathetic and dishonest strawman that simply shows that you don’t understand the argument,,,,,,,,,,, nobody claims that FT means design…..

"The Fine-Tuning Argument (FTA) is a recent variant of the Design Argument (also known as the Teleological Argument) for the existence of God. The Fine-Tuning Argument grew out of discoveries prompted by the development of Big Bang cosmology in the twentieth century."

It took me ten seconds to find that, and a dozen more.

 

[Sheldon]

However if you want to deny Stegosaurs existed, then crack on, why would I care if you wish to appear ridiculous.

I don’t deny that stegosaurs ever existed,

I never claimed you did.

But all we have to verify the authenticity of the fossils are testimonies and assertions, so by your rules , there is no evidence for authentic stegosaurus fossils.

Nonsense, and they're not "my rules".

 

[Sheldon]

Yes and all we have are testimonies and claims from people who claim to have found and studied those fossils.

That is not true, as has been explained.

So by your rules, there is no evidence

My rules? Please quote me anywhere ever saying scientific facts are solely based on subjective testimonies? One genuine example, and I will leave this site forever.

 

[PureX]

see my point @9-10ths_Penguin
Usually atheist don’t like to explain what they mean by evidence.

I told you I do consider the historical documents in the new testament as evidence for the resurrection .

It is your turn to explain, why is it that you don’t consider them evidence……………….. what do you mean by evidence (in the context of events that happened in the past) and why is it that the NT fisl to be evidence?

From the conversations I've had with atheists, most of them want to set the bar for "evidence" so high that there can't possibly be any. Also, they insist that they be the judge of what is and is not "evidence" (for obvious reasons). The end result seems to be that what they will consider "evidence" is actually proof. And of course, only THEY can determine what rises to the level of proof, to them. It must be material proof (as they are pretty much all philosophical materialists) and it must be "scientific" proof because they are pretty much all fully invested in the cult of "scientism". So much so that they don't even believe it's a thing. In much the same way that racism is invisible to racists.

The key to their "position" as atheists is to always keep themselves in the judge's seat. To always demand that the theist rise to their standards, and jump through their hoops, even though they could not possibly do any of what they demand of others in defense of their own atheism.

But hey, let's see if any of them will speak up for themselves. I predict an attack, though, because they have no defense, and they can't actually offer a position or they might be expected to defend it. So, they mostly just attack and attack and attack, because it's all they can do.

 

[Sheldon]

That harry potrer hypothesis and stegosaurus are not analogous (the analogy is false)

I didn't mention a Stegosaur, nor was I implying any analogy with one? Is English your first language?

No but you jumped to the conversation about stegosaurs. (and I assumed that you understood the context before participating in the conversation)

I made absolutely no mention of Stegosaurus in that post? What on earth are you talking about? Here it is verbatim:

So hypothetically, if something had limitless power, it can probably do some stuff.

Profound....

If Harry Potter were real, and omniscient, he could have created the universe. What do I win?

Where on earth do you get anything about Stegosaurus from that?

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
The word is in the dictionary, but just presenting the most compelling reason for holding the belief, would seem to be a pretty obvious first step.

see my point @9-10ths_Penguin Athesist demand for evidence, but they refuse to explain what they mean by evidence.

I just explained it in the post you responded to? Why do you keep dishonestly claiming I have not told you what I mean by evidence when I have explained it innumerable times?

Evidence
noun

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

From now on I will simply repost that each time you falsely make this claim. For clarity I always say sufficient objective evidence. If you want those definitions as well, you can Google them.

 

[Sheldon]

All I am asking is for a method / criteria that would allow me to test if something would count as evidence or not

Well when you have one present it, and I will take a look with an open mind.

 

[Sheldon]

It is a scientific fact that Stegosaurs once existed.

No that is a subjective interpretation.

No it absolutely isn't, I get you seem to not understand that, but you're wrong.