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

[Evangelicalhumanist]

it's possible to take a dim view of the theory yes. According to Gallup, belief in Darwinism is about 19% in the US- and that's with having it force fed in classrooms.

Two things wrong with that: first, by "dim" I meant uninformed, not unbelieving, and second, if our "proof" of anything is the number of Americans that can be brought to believe it (or disproof is what they can be brought to disbelieve), then actual knowledge of anything at all is impossible, and Ken Ham is the only competent "scientist" the US has ever produced.

No, I think changes in weather and climate are determined by naturally dynamic systems, how 'bout you?

And THAT, Buckaroo, is precisely the same for evolutionary "selection." The dissemination of genes is just a much part of a dynamic system -- governed by survival to reproduce rather than sunshine and shadow to warm and cool!

 

[Animore]

in the sense that this forum software 'runs on it's own laws' but it didn't write itself- and the superficial functionality of it we see, is, by necessity, not the explanation for it's own existence.

I sense a watchmaker argument here.

Okay, say you found a watchmaker on the beach. Sure, you would know that the watch is created. But say you found a shoemaker on the beach. Would this be made by a watchmaker? No, so this indicates that the watch would be made by a watchmaker, snow would be made by a snowmaker, trees would be made by a treemaker, and grass would be made by a grassmaker.

You did quote Dawkins, didn't you?

"The only watchmaker in nature is the blind force of physics, albeit deplored in a special way."

Also by your analogy because leaves are green, they are plants, and money is green, so it grows on plants.

I don't think something comes from nothing, I'm not sure anything can exist without intent, purpose, design to make it so

So disfigured puppies exist with intent, purpose, and design?

Remember that classical physics was far more directly observable, measurable, testable, repeatable, i.e. scientific than evolution.

Evolution

Early Theories of Evolution: Evidence of Evolution

What is the evidence for evolution?

Lines of evidence: The science of evolution

The classical laws of physics were too simple to account for physical reality

And a cat could be considered to simple to have puppies. Things will not stay static for long.If the universe is cool enough for hydrogen atoms to form, they will, because the conditions are right, just like if the conditions are right for evolution by way of natural selection, they'll happen.

Because this is precisely what the fossil record does show, and if you disagree you'd have to take it up with Dawkins as well as practically every scientist in the field on either side

So I've done a bit of research on this, and yes, when sudden changes occur, some changes can be quite abrupt. I concede this much, but is there a point to be made here?

It doesn't mean evolution is impossible, it just means it's not validated scientifically.

Wrong wrong wrong.

Just because there has been a new basis of information to contradict a small part of the theory does not mean the theory is disproven. Quite the contrary. It just means that we have new knowledge on the matter.

Darwin thought that the change was gradual because the evidence was rare. We now have fossil evidence to show what actually happens in parts of evolution, instead of a hypothesis. The fossil evidence for evolution, as well as the comparative evidence, etc. still stands. And there has not been an overlapping fossil. This just means there is a brand new field of information, and we don't have all the answers.

Isn't it exciting?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Two things wrong with that: first, by "dim" I meant uninformed, not unbelieving, and second, if our "proof" of anything is the number of Americans that can be brought to believe it (or disproof is what they can be brought to disbelieve), then actual knowledge of anything at all is impossible, and Ken Ham is the only competent "scientist" the US has ever produced.

Well you may have a good point there; Galilei, Planck, Lemaitre, were each one of a kind also, and derided as such. Science, by definition, does not progress by consensus!

And THAT, Buckaroo, is precisely the same for evolutionary "selection." The dissemination of genes is just a much part of a dynamic system -- governed by survival to reproduce rather than sunshine and shadow to warm and cool!

Nature is the executor of God's laws, as one of those aforementioned scientists said. A dynamic climate, sentient beings; no accident.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I sense a watchmaker argument here.

Okay, say you found a watchmaker on the beach. Sure, you would know that the watch is created. But say you found a shoemaker on the beach. Would this be made by a watchmaker? No, so this indicates that the watch would be made by a watchmaker, snow would be made by a snowmaker, trees would be made by a treemaker, and grass would be made by a grassmaker.

Agreed, they all required a designer, I knew you were coming around!


Evolution

Early Theories of Evolution: Evidence of Evolution

What is the evidence for evolution?

Lines of evidence: The science of evolution

[/quote]

I wasn't too impressed with Bezerkeley when I was there, and I'm sure I could give you links from sources you would dismiss also.

I'd be more interested in your understanding of how evolution is supposed to work. Isn't that the point of science, not having to take other people's word for it?

So I've done a bit of research on this, and yes, when sudden changes occur, some changes can be quite abrupt. I concede this much, but is there a point to be made here?

In science you make predictions, if they are validated- that's good, if they are blown out of the water... in theory this invalidates the hypothesis. In practice.. by the time this happens a lot of people have grown rather fond of it, and will patch it up as long as they can.

There is a reason the 'ultraviolet catastrophe' was so called, instead of the ultraviolet breakthrough, enlightenment, triumph. we prefer the simpler explanations

Wrong wrong wrong.

subjective- substance?

Just because there has been a new basis of information to contradict a small part of the theory does not mean the theory is disproven. Quite the contrary. It just means that we have new knowledge on the matter.

Darwin thought that the change was gradual because the evidence was rare. We now have fossil evidence to show what actually happens in parts of evolution, instead of a hypothesis. The fossil evidence for evolution, as well as the comparative evidence, etc. still stands. And there has not been an overlapping fossil. This just means there is a brand new field of information, and we don't have all the answers.

Isn't it exciting?

He thought it was gradual, because there are so many steps between a single cell and a complex highly evolved organism- it would take chance an extremely long time to happen upon them.


The fact that they happened instead in distinct sudden leaps, instantaneously as far as the record shows... yes, It's exciting to me, as was the priest Lemaitre's primeval atom, Max Planck's quantum mechanics, so let's not make the same mistake as atheists have repeatedly in the past, and hold back scientific progress, restrict those answers to those which seem to best fit their 'simplest is best' preconceptions.

If we have learned anything, it is that reality is not simple, it is not an inevitable result of any old random parameters. We are trying to reverse engineer- literally the most sophisticated engineering in the universe, and ultimately, I believe that is our purpose.

 

[Animore]

Agreed, they all required a designer, I knew you were coming around!

No, no, no. The analogy suggests that the universe had multiple designers.

I think you know, deep down, that a sky wizard is not a plausible way of dealing with the formation of the universe.

The fact that they happened instead in distinct sudden leaps, instantaneously as far as the record shows... yes, It's exciting to me, as was the priest Lemaitre's primeval atom, Max Planck's quantum mechanics, so let's not make the same mistake as atheists have repeatedly in the past, and hold back scientific progress, restrict those answers to those which seem to best fit their 'simplest is best' preconceptions.

Again, doing some more evidence, I've found this site:

http://phys.org/news/2013-02-species-sudden.html

Also, this:

Have fun with that.

He thought it was gradual, because there are so many steps between a single cell and a complex highly evolved organism- it would take chance an extremely long time to happen upon them.

Tsk, tsk- thought you new better. You are confusing abiogenesis with evolution, when they are completely different subjects.

If we have learned anything, it is that reality is not simple, it is not an inevitable result of any old random parameters. We are trying to reverse engineer- literally the most sophisticated engineering in the universe, and ultimately, I believe that is our purpose.

Sophistication does not equal design. I've explained this.

I'd be more interested in your understanding of how evolution is supposed to work. Isn't that the point of science, not having to take other people's word for it?

I've explained my understanding on evolution. Don't you remember?

P.S.: In order to gain more info on the subject, I asked this question on another forum: Evolution: Abrupt Changes

Here is one's response:

"Sudden? Over how many generations? You might find the so called 'sudden' change actually occurred progressively over a very large number of generations. tens of thousands. Admittedly many species may appear to change little over millions of generations, so speciation over ten thousand generations is abrupt compared to the period of stasis. But the process of speciation still takes place incrementally with little apparent change from generation to generation, but sufficient cumulative change over tens to hundreds of thousands of years.


The reason why species appear to remain little changed over many millions of years and then change significantly over hundreds of thousands of years usually have to do with stability of environment. When the environment is stable, species evolve into an relatively stable form In adaquate equilibrium to the environment. Once there, the species settle down into apparent stasis. Genetic motive force behind the change still occur at the same rate. But changes Now bring diminished possibility of further improvement in adaptation, but enhanced possibility of losing adaptation already achieved. So most changes are weeded out. The species over all appear to change little.


But if the environment changes, previously achieved adaptation losses their efficacy. Now change bring increased chance of improving adaptation. Improved adaptation gets selected, old obsolete adaptation does out. So specie overall appear to change.

When you have just a few fossils of a specie, so 50. The typical life of a mammalian species of 2 million years. This means on average your 50 specimens are from time slices 40 thousand years apart. Given this granualrity, a speciation event can indeed appear to us to be abrupt. Slightly older, and the specimen looked this way. For the last 49 specimens, the fossil all looked much the same. Next specimen, it changed so much it's probably a new species. Bang, abrupt speciation. Yes? No. remember there are probably 40 thousand years between specimens."

 

[Animore]

Just realized how many typos I make on this.

Oh well.

 

[David T]

"If you say God didn't do it, then the burden of proof is on you to explain how it happened."

There is no complete all emcompassing cosmology in science that can state what you ask for. What science generally states and is as abused as the bible is that there is no outside to reality in which this reality is a virtual reality. Then of course they completely ignore thAt and create all kinds of virtual realities called theories and argue about them. Death in science and religion seems to be the elephant in the room. Religion has a vahala approach to it, science has a nilistic approach to it. If there is only Valhalla or nilism that is the only reality there is I would say "city folk you are ****ed up".

 

[Milton Platt]

You keep avoiding the 2 critical questions:

1. What is the source of matter, energy and life?
2. You never present the evidence, scientific evidence that is, that the running of space-time is a valid concept.

If you say God didn't do it, then the burden of proof is on you to explain how it happened. Also the burden of proof is on you to also present the scientific evidence that makes it
possible.

All you keep doing is blowing smoke to hide the FACT that you can't explain the origin of matter, energy and life. You can't even explain it in non-scientific terms, let alone in scientific terms.

Let me remind you of your own words:
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.

It is quite acceptable for someone to not know know all the answers. It is unacceptable to insert a god into the blanks without the evidence to support it.

 

[omega2xx]

It is quite acceptable for someone to not know know all the answers.

Agreed. No one know every thing about anything.

It is unacceptable to insert a god into the blanks without the evidence to support it.

I didn't mention God did I?

 

[Milton Platt]

Agreed. No one know every thing about anything.



I didn't mention God did I?

Yes, you said this: "If you say God didn't do it, then the burden of proof is on you to explain how it happened. Also the burden of proof is on you to also present the scientific evidence that makes it
possible."

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Well you may have a good point thetre; Galilei, Planck, Lemaitre, were each one of a kind also, and derided as such. Science, by definition, does not progress by consensus!

And consensus all too often leads to horrors that no individual could ever have been persuaded to do alone! Vigilante "justice" has hanged more innocent folks than one likes to think about. In my view, our only real saviour is our rational mind -- when we permit it to do its job.

Nature is the executor of God's laws, as one of those aforementioned scientists said. A dynamic climate, sentient beings; no accident.

Well, you certainly seem to think so, though I do not. I think "accident" (by which I mean "unguided natural process") is the only truly obvious answer. I say this because it seems absolutely obvious to me that if (as you say), "Nature is the executor of God's laws," then we ought be every possible rationale argument to read God's nature into the events of nature. And yet, I find very much the opposite -- no "God" (capitalized on purpose, this time) that I have ever seen adequately described, is expressed in the nature that I see, whereas "unguided natural process" screams out from every natural event.

I guess it depends on what you decide to look at -- and how much credence you give what you eventually see.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And consensus all too often leads to horrors that no individual could ever have been persuaded to do alone! Vigilante "justice" has hanged more innocent folks than one likes to think about. In my view, our only real saviour is our rational mind -- when we permit it to do its job.

Very much agree, and I think that's a fundamental value of faith, acknowledging our personal beliefs as such- whatever they may be.

Well, you certainly seem to think so, though I do not. I think "accident" (by which I mean "unguided natural process") is the only truly obvious answer. I say this because it seems absolutely obvious to me that if (as you say), "Nature is the executor of God's laws," then we ought be every possible rationale argument to read God's nature into the events of nature. And yet, I find very much the opposite -- no "God" (capitalized on purpose, this time) that I have ever seen adequately described, is expressed in the nature that I see, whereas "unguided natural process" screams out from every natural event.

I guess it depends on what you decide to look at -- and how much credence you give what you eventually see.

Well yes, we're all taking our best guesses here!

But you present a paradox unique to atheism/ naturalism. That the laws of nature can ultimately be accounted for by.. those very same laws. Where we do not forbid creative input from the process, we have a hypothetical solution to this paradox-. Creative intelligence can do what nature alone never can: truly create, unrestrained by an infinite regression of cause and effect.

We could scrutinize every line in the code behind this website, and find nothing but the same pattern of 'natural' automated laws allowing it to function beautifully. This in no way suggests that the code also ultimately wrote itself by the same 'natural' unguided process, quite the opposite I would argue!

 

[Milton Platt]

And consensus all too often leads to horrors that no individual could ever have been persuaded to do alone! Vigilante "justice" has hanged more innocent folks than one likes to think about. In my view, our only real saviour is our rational mind -- when we permit it to do its job.

Well, you certainly seem to think so, though I do not. I think "accident" (by which I mean "unguided natural process") is the only truly obvious answer. I say this because it seems absolutely obvious to me that if (as you say), "Nature is the executor of God's laws," then we ought be every possible rationale argument to read God's nature into the events of nature. And yet, I find very much the opposite -- no "God" (capitalized on purpose, this time) that I have ever seen adequately described, is expressed in the nature that I see, whereas "unguided natural process" screams out from every natural event.

I guess it depends on what you decide to look at -- and how much credence you give what you eventually see.

I agree with all you have said in this post (If you will pardon me for injecting myself into a conversation I was not a part of). But I differ with you on describing events guided by the laws of nature as being accidental. They all happen in the way they do precisely because the laws of nature dictate that they must.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Very much agree, and I think that's a fundamental value of faith, acknowledging our personal beliefs as such- whatever they may be.

So long as you remember to acknowledge when you cannot provide anything that suggests your beliefs might be based on some reality or other.

Well yes, we're all taking our best guesses here!

No, we're not. We're looking at a nature we can observe, and hopefully making the best sense we can out of it. In general, "pre-fab" beliefs don't tend to help that very much, and pretty generally lead to cognitive dissonance.

But you present a paradox unique to atheism/ naturalism. That the laws of nature can ultimately be accounted for by.. those very same laws.

Exactly! Because if the laws cause something to occur, working backwards from what occurred can help you understand those very laws! What else is needed?

Where we do not forbid creative input from the process, we have a hypothetical solution to this paradox-. Creative intelligence can do what nature alone never can: truly create, unrestrained by an infinite regression of cause and effect.

But the trick with what you're saying is not about forbidding creativity, but assuming that creativity is the only possible explanation! And that, in the view of us who accept natural process as the way things work, simply is not a rational assumption. Yes, there may be creativity, as you put it, but it isn't necessary. And if we listen to Occam's Razor, if it's not necessary, why do we need to assume it? It only complicates things unnecessarily.

We could scrutinize every line in the code behind this website, and find nothing but the same pattern of 'natural' automated laws allowing it to function beautifully. This in no way suggests that the code also ultimately wrote itself by the same 'natural' unguided process, quite the opposite I would argue!

Yes, you could, but it wouldn't work. Why not? Because you didn't scrutinize the actions of every writer of that code, nor the natural events that affected each of them, and so on back and back and back....You chose, instead, to look at the website and its code in isolation -- and that's not how things work.

 

[icehorse]

But to claim that a God doesn't exist, and then cop-out and say that the burden of proof is on you?

From the OP: It's important to see that there are two claims in this sentence. IMO:

- a critical thinker will tend NOT to make the absolute claim that God doesn't exist. That would be impossible to prove. He can however admit that he thinks the chances of a god are vanishingly small.
- anyone who claims that god does exist can rightly be asked to provide evidence.

Relatedly, the fact that scientists don't (yet), know the origins of the universe is NOT proof of a creator.

 

[gnomon]

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.

Do you actually even know anything at all about what you are talking about?

That's the best I can say at this point.

Because I read through the following thread and it appears to be nothing more than mumbled absolute garbage.