In Opposition of a the "Negative Claim" Argument in Respects to Theism and Atheism

[Animore]

The shape of the universe appears to be curved, finite, and boundless. A euclidean plane would not be an accurate representation.

I'm not saying that the universe is shaped like the surface of a balloon exactly, but it's a more useful model.


It's the model that best fits the available facts. The predictions it makes have borne out in observation, and it's not been falsified. In short: It's the best model available.

I don't know what you think "proven" means.

It certainly lacks the number or scale of predictions that the evolution has, for example; and there are other models (dismissed via occam's razor) that would be functionally identical (though most simply move goalposts).

1. Well, yes, I'm not denying it's somewhat curved. However, again, I was making an analogy. The balloon is spherical, the universe is mostly flat.

1. Proven like evolution proven. With cold-hard facts. You prove my point when you say there are other available models.

 

[JerryL]

1. Well, yes, I'm not denying it's somewhat curved. However, again, I was making an analogy. The balloon is spherical, the universe is mostly flat.

It would appear finite but boundless. That would exclude a flat geometry.

1. Proven like evolution proven. With cold-hard facts. You prove my point when you say there are other available models.

Ok.

 

[Animore]

It would appear finite but boundless. That would exclude a flat geometry.


Ok.

Fair enough.

 

[Segev Moran]

There is one argument above all others in which I do not enjoy, and do not support in New Atheism and general atheistic arguments, and that is "You can't prove a negative" and the "Burden of Proof" argument, and I cannot find a single instance in which this works except when someone who is not making a negative claim.

Your entire post is based on a wrong argument.
The argument is not that you cannot prove negativity. Science does that all the time. Science is built on negativity!!!
When you go to a doctor to be diagnosed of a disease, you start with eliminating diseases (in some cases of course)

The Atheist claim, is, that one cannot prove negativity of something that cannot be proven as true.

You can say that if you drop the ball right now, it will fly in the air...
It's, obviously, easy to disprove.
But what if I tell you that the ball falls just because there is an invisible demon pushing it down to earth? Can you disprove that?
Can you prove to me that there is no such demon?
Here are some more examples:

Can you prove to me that there are no fairies?
Can you prove there are no aliens living amongst us?
can you prove to me that right now! there is an invisible creature from another dimension staring at you?

Once you can prove truth, you can prove negativity

 

[Guy Threepwood]

There is one argument above all others in which I do not enjoy, and do not support in New Atheism and general atheistic arguments, and that is "You can't prove a negative" and the "Burden of Proof" argument, and I cannot find a single instance in which this works except when someone who is not making a negative claim. Here's why.

Alright, so let's say there's a man who walks up to you and says that he can do fifty cartwheels in five seconds. I tell him I don't believe him. He's going to have to prove such a thing. It is obviously not the skeptics burden of proof. This is all well and good. Now, let's say that there's a man who is in protest of such a thing, and starts saying, "There is no way for this man to do such a thing." Well, that's a claim, right? Well the man starts using the burden of proof argument. Except, this is not a claim to skepticism, this is a claim in itself, and he has just admitted that he can't prove a negative. Why in the hell would he make the claim then, if he can't prove it? To make this clearer, I'll give an instance of the burden of proof in other areas:

In claims in science, whether it's a negative or not, the man who is making a claim will have to provide the evidence, either for or against it. If it is a positive claim, they will have to give the evidence for it. If it is a negative claim, they will have to give the evidence against it. Now, I understand that in most areas, it is impossible for one to prove something doesn't exist. Still, that brings me back to my point: why make the claim? I feel it's completely unfair to say that one side has to prove something, and the other doesn't. If a side makes a claim, whether something exists or not, it seems entirely more fair to own up to that claim instead of galloping around thinking that you can say whatever you want because its a negatively claim, and again. I understand if it's a claim to skepticism, because then, obviously, it's not their burden of proof, but when someone is going to make a claim of a non-existence of something, it's better to give the arguments against that, instead of giving a cop-out.

And that is why I feel it's better to stick to the claims like "There is no evidence for God," or, "God is not essential to the runnings of space-time" because these are claims that in a way can be backed up with evidence. But to claim that a God doesn't exist, and then cop-out and say that the burden of proof is on you? That is entirely unfair, whether it's a negative claim or not.

We agree, and theists can play the same game if they like:

I hereby declare myself an a-naturalist. I make no positive assertion that needs defending myself, I simply refuse to believe in naturalistic explanations for the universe until sufficient evidence is provided. The burden of proof rests entirely with naturalists.

(and I meanwhile default to the obvious alternative)

i.e. simply labeling our beliefs as a disbelief of the alternative- doesn't change those beliefs, it merely seeks to avoid having to defend them on their own merits.

 

[Animore]

We agree, and theists can play the same game if they like:

I hereby declare myself an a-naturalist. I make no positive assertion that needs defending myself, I simply refuse to believe in naturalistic explanations for the universe until sufficient evidence is provided. The burden of proof rests entirely with naturalists.

(and I meanwhile default to the obvious alternative)

i.e. simply labeling our beliefs as a disbelief of the alternative- doesn't change those beliefs, it merely seeks to avoid having to defend them on their own merits.

Thanks for the response.

This is, in the most part, true, it does seem, in a very simple glance, true. However, let's look at this, shall we?

Let's say that you fall into a coma, and wake up in several years' time. After waking up, you find that the human race is filled with people who believe that quantum computers are what controls the universe (I give such an example because the analogy with unicorns is, I've found, misunderstood in some ways.) Well, such a belief is very prominent these days, and it should be useful in this way to identify as a lack of something.

Let me try to give a philosophical view of it.

In such a world that is filled with theism, one cannot go around calling them something that would make no sense. If they called themselves seculars that would be possibly continuing on the misconception about atheists - that they all claim God does not exist, and believe God does not exist. They couldn't call themselves anti-theists, because that could bring about the impression that they were mobs with pitchforks. No, they had to use something that would not bring about misrepresentations of the worldview, yet still use something that one could remember. Atheists, obviously, works. It is general enough to have every "without a god" individual have a name, but not so general as to have no meaning, and not so specific that they would completely tear apart two groups that identified as the same lack of belief: strong atheists and weak atheists. It works, and trust me, if such a belief was highly popular, it could be safe to say that you could be identifying yourself as an a-naturalist.

Forgive me, I am not over-exaggerating here when I said I have gotten no sleep.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Thanks for the response.

This is, in the most part, true, it does seem, in a very simple glance, true. However, let's look at this, shall we?

Let's say that you fall into a coma, and wake up in several years' time. After waking up, you find that the human race is filled with people who believe that quantum computers are what controls the universe (I give such an example because the analogy with unicorns is, I've found, misunderstood in some ways.) Well, such a belief is very prominent these days, and it should be useful in this way to identify as a lack of something.

Let me try to give a philosophical view of it.

In such a world that is filled with theism, one cannot go around calling them something that would make no sense. If they called themselves seculars that would be possibly continuing on the misconception about atheists - that they all claim God does not exist, and believe God does not exist. They couldn't call themselves anti-theists, because that could bring about the impression that they were mobs with pitchforks. No, they had to use something that would not bring about misrepresentations of the worldview, yet still use something that one could remember. Atheists, obviously, works. It is general enough to have every "without a god" individual have a name, but not so general as to have no meaning, and not so specific that they would completely tear apart two groups that identified as the same lack of belief: strong atheists and weak atheists. It works, and trust me, if such a belief was highly popular, it could be safe to say that you could be identifying yourself as an a-naturalist.

Forgive me, I am not over-exaggerating here when I said I have gotten no sleep.

I take your point there. It also depends on who holds the authority to label beliefs as 'default' and 'skeptical' though. There are certain beliefs popular in academia today, but not the general public- where holding the majority opinion makes you a 'denier'.

I agree the unicorn is a bad analogy for God, because rejecting it's existence does not denote the existence of another mythical creature to take its place.- like the flying spaghetti multiverse for example!

We know the universe exists, but there is no standard explanation to default to, we have no reference for how universes 'usually' come to be do we? We're all taking our best guess

 

[Animore]

I take your point there. It also depends on who holds the authority to label beliefs as 'default' and 'skeptical' though. There are certain beliefs popular in academia today, but not the general public- where holding the majority opinion makes you a 'denier'.

I agree the unicorn is a bad analogy for God, because rejecting it's existence does not denote the existence of another mythical creature to take its place.- like the flying spaghetti multiverse for example!

We know the universe exists, but there is no standard explanation to default to, we have no reference for how universes 'usually' come to be do we? We're all taking our best guess

1. I concur.

2. I concur.

3. Well, in general, yes. No one has observed directly the beginning of the cosmos, so our best way of identifying possible means is by observing the present-day celestial bodies, and attributing our answers from there.

 

[Altfish]

I'm surprised that no one has yet mentioned The Flying Spaghetti Monster or Russell's Teapot.

Can someone who opposes the negative claim explain to me how they would prove that they don't exist? Or perhaps they do?!!?

 

[Animore]

I'm surprised that no one has yet mentioned The Flying Spaghetti Monster or Russell's Teapot.

Can someone who opposes the negative claim explain to me how they would prove that they don't exist? Or perhaps they do?!!?

Ah. Great question.

When dealing with equating a certain God concept to another unlikely thing, that is perfectly fine. It shows why such a God concept is highly improbable. However, to use it when claiming that God does not exist? That's a cop-out of a grand scale. It is shifting the burden of proof. I hear many people many a-time make the same logical fallacy that you do.

If you make a claim on the existence of something, one must own up to that claim.

It does not matter whether it is a claim as improbable as a fairy or leprechaun. There is still a 0.000000001% chance that such a supernatural being exists, and while yes, that is only because it is an unfalsifiable claim, that does not exclude you from owning up to your burden.

When one is making a claim, they give themselves the burden of proof.

I concur on the matter that some God concepts, for example a theistic God, is damn-near impossible, and it is safe to say that because in modern society we have not seen one miracle promised in such holy books as the Bible. Nevertheless, to make a claim about a deity in general?

That is arrogant, presumptuous, and fallacious.

*edit

 

[Altfish]

Ah. Great question.

When dealing with equating a certain God concept to another unlikely thing, that is perfectly fine. It shows why such a God concept is highly improbable. However, to use it when claiming that God does not exist? That's a cop-out of a grand scale. It is shifting the burden of proof. I hear many people many a-time make the same logical fallacy that you do.

If you make a claim on the existence of something, one must own up to that claim.

It does not matter whether it is a claim as improbable as a fairy or leprechaun. There is still a 0.000000001% chance that such a supernatural being exists, and while yes, that is only because it is an unfalsifiable claim, that does not exclude you from owning up to your burden.

When one is making a claim, they give themselves the burden of proof.

I concur on the matter that some God concepts, for example a theistic God, is damn-near impossible, and it is safe to say that because in modern society we have not seen one miracle promised in such holy books as the Bible. Nevertheless, to make a claim about a deity in general?

That is arrogant, presumptuous, and fallacious.

*edit

I think most atheists although stating that 'There is no god' as saying that as a shortened form of, "I can find absolutely no evidence for the existence of god, therefore I shall live my life as if there isn't one'. The shortened form being so much easier.
I think it is also true that most atheists if given good proof of the existence of a deity would happily change their mind.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

1. I concur.

2. I concur.

3. Well, in general, yes. No one has observed directly the beginning of the cosmos, so our best way of identifying possible means is by observing the present-day celestial bodies, and attributing our answers from there.

And as far as we can tell from that, the universe did actually have a beginning right?, a creation event, a concept atheists once dismissed as 'religious pseudoscience' and mocked as 'Big Bang'. They overwhelmingly preferred static/ eternal/ steady state models (no creation = no creator)

That's not a slam dunk for God, but it certainly doesn't make naturalism the default explanation either.

I think we agree on the principle though?- that any explanation should stand on it's own merits, not try to claim 'default winner' status..

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I concur on the matter that some God concepts, for example a theistic God, is damn-near impossible, and it is safe to say that because in modern society we have not seen one miracle promised in such holy books as the Bible. Nevertheless, to make a claim about a deity in general?

That is arrogant, presumptuous, and fallacious.

Something to consider, though: what's a god?

The only common element I've been able to find between all gods is that a god is something that is worshipped by humans. Maybe this isn't a sufficient crtierion for a god (I'm sure we could come up with non-god things that are worshipped), but it does strike me as a necessary criterion: IOW, if something isn't worshipped, it isn't a god.

This makes gods a bit different from, say Russell's Teapot: even if nobody is aware of it, a teapot drifting out in space somewhere would still be a teapot. However, a "god" that nobody is aware if wouldn't be worshipped by anyone. If being worshipped is a necessary element of being a god, then only things that humans worship (and therefore, also only things that humans are aware of) could possibly be gods.

This reduces the scope of what someone would need to examine to be justified in saying "there are no gods."

It also means that if someone can conclude that god-belief in general isn't the result of a deity or deities, then we can also use this to conclude that gods don't exist.

 

[Animore]

And as far as we can tell from that, the universe did actually have a beginning right?, a creation event, a concept atheists once dismissed as 'religious pseudoscience' and mocked as 'Big Bang'. They overwhelmingly preferred static/ eternal/ steady state models (no creation = no creator)

I sense you're trying to make an "a-ha" moment here.

I want to point out that atheists don't have any "concepts". They have the lack of one. I believe you're talking mostly about physicists and cosmologists here, so I will make this post in assumption of that.

I don't see one physicist, cosmologist, etc. say that the universe didn't have an end. In fact, cosmology does literally study on the origin and death of the universe. So yes, we all accept that the universe had a beginning. We just don't know what was before the beginning (or rather original factor, being the singularity of course) of the beginning. One can safely say nothing, because the universe was born inside this "beginning".

I don't see how just because the universe had a beginning, that calls for a creator. In fact, the Big Bang acts as the sole rebuttal (one could say refutation) of a creator.

 

[Animore]

Something to consider, though: what's a god?

A very valid question. That's why I do not enjoy discussing a concept of God which has not been defined. One cannot prove or disprove something that is so vague one does not even know if you should capitalize it's name.

The only common element I've been able to find between all gods is that a god is something that is worshipped by humans. Maybe this isn't a sufficient crtierion for a god (I'm sure we could come up with non-god things that are worshipped), but it does strike me as a necessary criterion: IOW, if something isn't worshipped, it isn't a god.

Well, everyone has a different interpretation of a common concept of something. I'd say that "something that should be worshiped" rules out a deistic God, or a God that is inside of us. I feel a better definition of a general deity would be a "supreme or higher being" or something to that extent.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I sense you're trying to make an "a-ha" moment here.

I want to point out that atheists don't have any "concepts". They have the lack of one. I believe you're talking mostly about physicists and cosmologists here, so I will make this post in assumption of that.

then we're back to square one. As an a-naturalist, I don't have any concepts, I simply lack one- that of naturalistic unguided universe creation.

We both label our concepts as 'default non concepts' and shift the burden of proof to the other side.
Not much of a debate is it?!

I don't see one physicist, cosmologist, etc. say that the universe didn't have an end. In fact, cosmology does literally study on the origin and death of the universe. So yes, we all accept that the universe had a beginning. We just don't know what was before the beginning (or rather original factor, being the singularity of course) of the beginning. One can safely say nothing, because the universe was born inside this "beginning".

I don't see how just because the universe had a beginning, that calls for a creator. In fact, the Big Bang acts as the sole rebuttal (one could say refutation) of a creator.

You would have had to have argued that assertion with almost every atheist cosmologist at the time, they were the ones who complained about the overt theistic implications of such a specific creation event, 'Big Bang' was the term atheist Hoyle used to mock the priest Lemaitre's 'primeval atom' theory.

Not conclusive as I said, but credit where it is due, atheists drew the line in the sand and predicted a static model in explicit refutation of creation events as described in Genesis.

But it was the creation event hypothesis which was validated- even down to the universe consisting entirely of light at a very early stage. Lucky guess by ignorant goat herders? perhaps, but I think there are less improbable explanations!

 

[Animore]

then we're back to square one. As an a-naturalist, I don't have any concepts, I simply lack one- that of naturalistic unguided universe creation.

I've gone over this. In a technical sense, yes, atheists "only lack" but the basic definition of atheism is the lack of belief in Gods. There should be no implications of anything unless it is reasonable to say so, and it is not reasonable to add beliefs to a lack of belief.

Let's say that you fall into a coma, and wake up in several years' time. After waking up, you find that the human race is filled with people who believe that quantum computers are what controls the universe (I give such an example because the analogy with unicorns is, I've found, misunderstood in some ways.) Well, such a belief is very prominent these days, and it should be useful in this way to identify as a lack of something.

Let me try to give a philosophical view of it.

In such a world that is filled with theism, one cannot go around calling them something that would make no sense. If they called themselves seculars that would be possibly continuing on the misconception about atheists - that they all claim God does not exist, and believe God does not exist. They couldn't call themselves anti-theists, because that could bring about the impression that they were mobs with pitchforks. No, they had to use something that would not bring about misrepresentations of the worldview, yet still use something that one could remember. Atheists, obviously, works. It is general enough to have every "without a god" individual have a name, but not so general as to have no meaning, and not so specific that they would completely tear apart two groups that identified as the same lack of belief: strong atheists and weak atheists. It works, and trust me, if such a belief was highly popular, it could be safe to say that you could be identifying yourself an a-naturalist.

You would have had to have argued that assertion with almost every atheist cosmologist at the time, they were the ones who complained about the overt theistic implications of such a specific creation event, 'Big Bang' was the term atheist Hoyle used to mock the priest Lemaitre's 'primeval atom' theory.

Well yes, it's quite obvious that the scientific advancement of nowadays is much different than the scientific advancement of the 1920s. There are different questions to be answered. In the 1920s it was, "Why is the universe expanding?" when nowadays it's, "What's the evidence of a blackhole singularity?" or, "If red shift does not explain cosmic expansion, what does it explain?"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, everyone has a different interpretation of a common concept of something. I'd say that "something that should be worshiped" rules out a deistic God, or a God that is inside of us.

There are people who worship deistic gods. I don't know what you mean by "a God that is inside of us"; if you mean a pantheistic or panentheistic god, then there are people who worship these gods, too.

BTW, I said "a being that *is* worshipped", not "a being that *should be* worshipped."

I feel a better definition of a general deity would be a "supreme or higher being" or something to that extent.

So then the existence of gods would depend on the existence of some sort of hierarchy of being?

In that case, rejecting the existence of gods is even easier: if you reject the idea that a hierarchy of being exists at all, then no "higher" beings can exist.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I've gone over this. In a technical sense, yes, atheists "only lack" but the basic definition of atheism is the lack of belief in Gods. There should be no implications of anything unless it is reasonable to say so, and it is not reasonable to add beliefs to a lack of belief.

Likewise, as an a-naturalist, I only lack belief in naturalistic explanations for the universe and life. It's not reasonable to suggest that this implies any other beliefs whatsoever... that would be unreasonably adding beliefs to my non belief!!

Well yes, it's quite obvious that the scientific advancement of nowadays is much different than the scientific advancement of the 1920s. There are different questions to be answered. In the 1920s it was, "Why is the universe expanding?" when nowadays it's, "What's the evidence of a blackhole singularity?" or, "If red shift does not explain cosmic expansion, what does it explain?"

The big question being- how was the singularity created? had the U proven to be eternal, that question may have been avoided.

As in my earlier analogy, if we could somehow determine that the word 'HELP' written with stones, on a deserted island beach , no evidence of people, had always been there, we might be able to dismiss the involvement of intelligent agency right?- but given that it appeared at some definitive point..

What would be your best guess, random action of the waves or creative intelligence?

 

[Animore]

There are people who worship deistic gods. I don't know what you mean by "a God that is inside of us"; if you mean a pantheistic or panentheistic god, then there are people who worship these gods, too.

BTW, I said "a god that *is* worshipped", not "a god that *should be* worshipped."

Fine, I'll restate my example.

There are some in the Pagan category who accept Gods as wise eternal beings, but do not worship them. By your logic they should be not included. Except that's not the case, because they are still considered gods. They are simply not worshiped

Also the point is, some do not worship them. By your logic, they should be not included.
Yes, I know. You defined the existence of God as such. That is what I'm saying. They are not always worshiped, so they apparently should be dis-included.

So then the existence of gods would depend on the existence of some sort of hierarchy of being?

In that case, rejecting the existence of gods is even easier: if you reject the idea that a hierarchy of being exists at all, then no "higher" beings can exist.

Just because someone rejects, denies, or does not believe in something, does not mean that there is no possibility of no Gods existing. Even professor Dawkins admits there is a 0.01% chance that a God exists.