The Burden of Proof

[The Kilted Heathen]

Right: it's often not clear at all what - if anything - a theist has in mind when they say "god".

If you'd like, I could begin a separate thread regarding this here in a bit (got some chores to do and the like).

 

[Nous]

Actually the uncertain language - "unlikely", "probably" - denotes it as an opinion.

No, those terms denote probabilities about a proposition being true.

I have no idea why you are trying to protect someone from having the burden of proving his assertion to be true.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

And likewise, I have no idea why you are trying to strong-arm someone into proving their opinion in the hypothetical face of insufficient evidence.

 

[ChristineM]

In response to my statement:

, you did say:



But the Wikipedia article points to several ways where the evidence contradicts Newton's law.

Do not take Wikipedia as a text book, it is open to to be edited by anyone without peer review or any validatory checks.

At the end of the article you will often find references that tend to be a far better source.

I can also suggest google scholar which lists scientific/educational publications.

You may find the following interesting

Violating Newton's laws.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But only one, not some, not all but one.

We have found many natural explanations for phenomena we once didn't understand.

Don't you think it follows from this, that the universe in turn should ultimately turn out to have a natural explanation also?

 

[Nous]

And likewise, I have no idea why you are trying to strong-arm someone into proving their opinion in the hypothetical face of insufficient evidence.

I haven't "strong-armed" anyone. I've only pointed out that @Evangelicalhumanist has the burden of proof to show that his claim about a proposition being "probably not true" is true. It's not my problem if you find that too troubling.

 

[Nous]

Do not take Wikipedia as a text book, it is open to to be edited by anyone without peer review or any validatory checks.

At the end of the article you will often find references that tend to be a far better source.

Did any of those "better sources" contradict these statements:

Some predictions of general relativity differ significantly from those of classical physics, especially concerning the passage of time, the geometry of space, the motion of bodies in free fall, and the propagation of light. Examples of such differences include gravitational time dilation, gravitational lensing, the gravitational redshift of light, and the gravitational time delay. The predictions of general relativity have been confirmed in all observations and experiments to date.​

General relativity - Wikipedia

Do you argue that there is no evidence where Newton's inverse-square law is violated?

 

[ChristineM]

We have found many natural explanations for phenomena we once didn't understand.

Don't you think it follows from this, that the universe in turn should ultimately turn out to have a natural explanation also?

A natural explanation is most probable, supernatural godmagic isn't

One understanding (leading to several theories) is that the cause of this universe was colliding quantum membranes, that's natural. Other quantum theories also exist

Some theories involve higher dimensions than our 3(or 4), natural? Possibly ... and if additional dimensions can be shown to exist then more than possibly.

Another (also spawning several theories) is the collision of pre existing universes, also natural. There is evidence in the CMB and the unusual movement of a vast swaith of galaxies that our universe has at some time in the past collided with something of universal size. Perhaps another universe. Also natural in a multiverse scenario.

There is even as theory that the universe came from nothing. Sounds far fetched to most religious folk... but consider that science explores the natural and there is nothing in science to prevent this scenario then this too is natural.

 

[ChristineM]

Did any of those "better sources" contradict these statements:

Some predictions of general relativity differ significantly from those of classical physics, especially concerning the passage of time, the geometry of space, the motion of bodies in free fall, and the propagation of light. Examples of such differences include gravitational time dilation, gravitational lensing, the gravitational redshift of light, and the gravitational time delay. The predictions of general relativity have been confirmed in all observations and experiments to date.​

General relativity - Wikipedia

Do you argue that there is no evidence where Newton's inverse-square law is violated?

I take it you never bothered either researching or reading the link i supplied so i will summarise

"The bottom line is that the fundamental core of laws are so logically and physically intertwined and so thoroughly tested that altering any one of them would affect nearly everything else. Therefore it is highly unlikely that new discoveries will invalidate one of these laws. And if one of them were to be invalidated, the entire structure of basic laws would need to be modified. "

 

[Guy Threepwood]

A natural explanation is most probable, supernatural godmagic isn't

One understanding (leading to several theories) is that the cause of this universe was colliding quantum membranes, that's natural. Other quantum theories also exist

Some theories involve higher dimensions than our 3(or 4), natural? Possibly ... and if additional dimensions can be shown to exist then more than possibly.

Another (also spawning several theories) is the collision of pre existing universes, also natural. There is evidence in the CMB and the unusual movement of a vast swaith of galaxies that our universe has at some time in the past collided with something of universal size. Perhaps another universe. Also natural in a multiverse scenario.

There is even as theory that the universe came from nothing. Sounds far fetched to most religious folk... but consider that science explores the natural and there is nothing in science to prevent this scenario then this too is natural.

there you go then, you agree with the same rationale, think the same way as most atheists including myself not so long ago. And I used to believe in M Theory, multiverses etc also by that same argument, that we should expect to find some sort of natural cause behind everything eventually.

But therein lies a paradox unique to atheist beliefs, that the laws of nature are ultimately explained by... those very same laws.

Creative intelligence is the only phenomena we know of that can solve this paradox, create something truly novel, unrestrained by an otherwise infinite regression of automated cause and effect.

If you want to call that 'supernatural' then I agree in a sense, since even our own creative intelligence transcends nature, in that it can achieve/ create what nature never can.

Moreover, since we are looking for something that by definition transcends nature (i.e. an explanation for it) I rather think that the 'supernatural' box is one you want to be able to check off!

 

[ChristineM]

there you go then, you agree with the same rationale, think the same way as most atheists including myself not so long ago. And I used to believe in M Theory, multiverses etc also by that same argument, that we should expect to find some sort of natural cause behind everything eventually.

But therein lies a paradox unique to atheist beliefs, that the laws of nature are ultimately explained by... those very same laws.

Creative intelligence is the only phenomena we know of that can solve this paradox, create something truly novel, unrestrained by an otherwise infinite regression of automated cause and effect.

If you want to call that 'supernatural' then I agree in a sense, since even our own creative intelligence transcends nature, in that it can achieve/ create what nature never can.

Moreover, since we are looking for something that by definition transcends nature (i.e. an explanation for it) I rather think that the 'supernatural' box is one you want to be able to check off!

However you are confusing atheist with scientist. Those descriptions are scientific theories, nothing to do with atheism. If, as you say you were once atheist (really quite amazing how many theists make that claim) then you would know that the only thing that makes an atheist is lack of belief in god or god's, other than that their views are more diverse than any religious persons i have ever met.

Of course the laws of nature are explained by the laws of nature, where is the paradox in that?

I have seen you use this argument before without actually arguing, rather simply putting your foot firmly down in incredulity. We know that chemical reactions happen all the time, no creative intelligence required. I am a creative intelligence, i really don't see what that has to do with quantum physics or multi dimensional landscapes or multiverses. What you really mean is you don't know so fill the gap with a bronze age myth.

What are we looking for that transcends nature? I'm not. I know that not all the answers are available, that does not mean i must fill the gaps with a god, it means we should endeavour by research and observation to learn more

 

[Nous]

I take it you never bothered either researching or reading the link i supplied so i will summarise

"The bottom line is that the fundamental core of laws are so logically and physically intertwined and so thoroughly tested that altering any one of them would affect nearly everything else. Therefore it is highly unlikely that new discoveries will invalidate one of these laws. And if one of them were to be invalidated, the entire structure of basic laws would need to be modified. "

I did read that. I didn't see where the author provided any reason to conclude that it is logically impossible for evidence to contradict Newton's inverse square law.

 

[ChristineM]

I did read that. I didn't see where the author provided any reason to conclude that it is logically impossible for evidence to contradict Newton's inverse square law.

"Therefore it is highly unlikely that new discoveries will invalidate one of these laws. And if one of them were to be invalidated, the entire structure of basic laws would need to be modified. "

So please provide a citation to evidence that newtons 3rd law is violated.

I will quote another section of my link just to stasrt you on your way

"The reader probably has already realized that this two-particle system might have been inspired by the fantastic tale of Baron Munchausen, who once saved himself from a perilous situation when mired in a bog by reaching up and lifting himself and his horse by his own hair (a pigtail). See: Baron Munchausen. Later variants of this tall tale had him lifting himself by his own bootstraps. This may be the first literary example of a violation of Newton's Laws. It is humorous because readers immediately recognize that nature doesn't work that way."

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Now the burden of proof is on you. Be sure to cite the evidence by which to conclude whatever it is you are claiming here.

Yes, apples can bounce off an hard surface.

Tha'ts the best "science" you can muster? Does that upward motion (reaction) continue until it "bounces" off something else (the ceiling perhaps, or the branch it fell from)? Or does it slow and resume it's downward trajectory until eventually stopping altogether -- as close to the center of the each as possible in the circumstance?

I don't know why you go down this rabbit hole about "denying the 'default' conclusion". There are no "default conclusions".

Normally the person who has the burden of proof is that person who makes the assertion. Like this: The burden is on you there. Be sure to explain how you constructed your probabilities. I'll present Brahman as the God:

In Hinduism, Brahman (/brəhmən/; ब्रह्मन्) connotes the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe.[1][2][3]In major schools of Hindu philosophy, it is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists.[2][4][5] It is the pervasive, genderless, infinite, eternal truth and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes.[1][6][7] Brahman as a metaphysical concept is the single binding unity behind the diversity in all that exists in the universe.[1][8]​

Brahman - Wikipedia

Yes, but you see, that "explanation" of Brahman -- in attempting to "explain everything" actually explains nothing at all. It is, in my view, essentially devoid of meaning -- or at least any meaning that one can then use as a premise in developing further hypotheses.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

However you are confusing atheist with scientist. Those descriptions are scientific theories, nothing to do with atheism. If, as you say you were once atheist (really quite amazing how many theists make that claim) then you would know that the only thing that makes an atheist is lack of belief in god or god's, other than that their views are more diverse than any religious persons i have ever met.

That you would have to argue with the atheists who came up with them and explicitly claimed them to make God redundant

Of course the laws of nature are explained by the laws of nature, where is the paradox in that?

explained by, as in their existence, that the laws of nature may be ultimately accounted for by... those very same laws, that's the paradox unique to atheist beliefs

I have seen you use this argument before without actually arguing, rather simply putting your foot firmly down in incredulity. We know that chemical reactions happen all the time, no creative intelligence required. I am a creative intelligence, i really don't see what that has to do with quantum physics or multi dimensional landscapes or multiverses. What you really mean is you don't know so fill the gap with a bronze age myth.


What are we looking for that transcends nature? I'm not. I know that not all the answers are available, that does not mean i must fill the gaps with a god, it means we should endeavour by research and observation to learn more

Then there is that paradox again, your beliefs demand that you must restrict yourself to natural laws to explain natural laws, as a skeptic of naturalism, I make no such restrictions on possible explanations, which ever fits best..

And that's the ultimate difference between our beliefs, I have no need to forbid yours to allow mine to become the most probable.

As with the rocks spelling HELP on the deserted island beach, it's possible that the waves washed them up like that,

but this is not the most probable explanation unless we can utterly rule out intelligent agency to an almost impossible degree.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The only process we know of that can create truly novel information systems is creative intelligence. Whether or not the same can be done by purely spontaneous unguided mechanisms is an interesting proposition, but bares the burden of proof in this case

Guy, look carefully at the photo: How do you think it was "created?" Why would its "creator" go to such trouble?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Correct. Which plays into my next point...

So then, by design, the evidence for something that does not exist and evidence disproving a god(s) would be the same... nothing.

It's interesting that those two are so closely related, and further demonstrates how the burden of proof will have to fall, at least in this scenario, on the thing being claimed which is not obvious - that gods exist.

But it is undeniable, is it not, that by the identical reasoning which you conclude "that gods exist," you must also conclude that every other thing ever imagined or to be imagined must likewise exist. Invisible fire-breathing dragons? Dang right---those suckers are everywhere!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I haven't "strong-armed" anyone. I've only pointed out that @Evangelicalhumanist has the burden of proof to show that his claim about a proposition being "probably not true" is true. It's not my problem if you find that too troubling.

@The Ragin Pagan was quite correct -- the equivocal word "probably" should alert you that I am not making a truth assertion -- I'm making a "quality of the evidence" assertion. I would make an absolutely identical assertion about the "evidence" for invisible, fire-breathing dragons, as given by Carl Sagan (look it up). I am not making an assertion about fire-breathing dragons. I am making an assertion about the quality (as I see it) of the evidence being presented to me. I need no further "proof."

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Guy, look carefully at the photo: How do you think it was "created?" Why would its "creator" go to such trouble?
View attachment 16831

What do these do?

 

[Skwim]

Guy, look carefully at the photo: How do you think it was "created?" Why would its "creator" go to such trouble?
View attachment 16831

Looks like a field of arctic donuts.

.

.