The Burden of Proof

[ratiocinator]

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.

Except that it doesn't solve the 'paradox' at all, it just moves it. It provides no answer as to how said creative intelligence came to exist and all the evidence we have indicates that creative intelligence is the result of the laws of nature.

You end up with an exactly equivalent paradox: creative intelligence is explained by... the very same creative intelligence.

And BTW, my atheist lack of belief does not involve believing that the laws of nature are explained by the laws of nature - I have no idea at all why there are laws of nature. I'm content with not knowing. I don't need a just-so story that purports to explain it with something equally unexplained.

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.

That's a bold and somewhat bizarre claim. How do you think our intelligence "transcends nature"? Again, all the evidence suggests we are the product of nature and hence all that we produce is a product of nature as well.

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!

The label 'supernatural' seems the be a euphemism for "it's magic, so we don't have to think about it any more"...

 

[Nous]

"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.

As seen from Earth the precession of Mercury's orbit is measured to be 5600 seconds of arc per century (one second of arc=1/3600 degrees). Newton's equations, taking into account all the effects from the other planets (as well as a very slight deformation of the sun due to its rotation) and the fact that the Earth is not an inertial frame of reference, predicts a precession of 5557 seconds of arc per century. There is a discrepancy of 43 seconds of arc per century.

This discrepancy cannot be accounted for using Newton's formalism. Many ad-hoc fixes were devised (such as assuming there was a certain amount of dust between the Sun and Mercury) but none were consistent with other observations (for example, no evidence of dust was found when the region between Mercury and the Sun was carefully scrutinized). In contrast, Einstein was able to predict, without any adjustments whatsoever, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by an extra 43 seconds of arc per century should the General Theory of Relativity be correct.​

Precession of the perihelion of Mercury

Abraham Pais notes that the discovery that General Relativity correctly predicted Mercury's precession was “by far the strongest emotional experience in Einstein's scientific life, perhaps in all his life.”

 

[Nous]

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 don't you tell us what every human has observed every single time time an apple has fallen?

 

[Nous]

@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.

What does that mean? Does that mean you can make some argument about some "quality of evidence"? If so, make it.

Or does it mean that you are saying something that should begin with "In my opinion . . ."?

When you use phrases such as "so very unlikely" and "probably not true," it makes me think that you are at least implying that you have derived some probability. If you are saying nothing more than "I believe . . . ," you shouldn't be ashamed to say that.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What do these do?

They don't "do" anything. They just are.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

What does that mean? Does that mean you can make some argument about some "quality of evidence"? If so, make it.

Of course it does. A video of someone committing a crime, for example, is a heck of a lot better evidence than the testimony of a gang-banger from an enemy gang testifying "I saw him do it, your honor!" The totality of all of the evidence I have ever encountered about the Christian God, what God demands in terms of belief, Heaven and Hell -- all of it -- is exactly such hear-say. The same is true for Mohammed's "conversations" with Gabriel, and for the entire Hindu pantheon. Ganesha has never turned up a festival unless it was humans in costume. Gabriel could have talked to anybody, so why an illiterate tent maker? Such hear-say doesn't impress me at all -- especially in light of the fact that all these "miracles" seem somehow to have completely stopped a long time ago. Gotta be a reason for that, you know.

Or does it mean that you are saying something that should begin with "In my opinion . . ."?

When you use phrases such as "so very unlikely" and "probably not true," it makes me think that you are at least implying that you have derived some probability. If you are saying nothing more than "I believe . . . ," you shouldn't be ashamed to say that.

Do you have some difficulty with the nuances of conversational English? Are you going to require that every sentence be carefully structured that there is 100% precision in the meaning and intent of every tittle and jot?

 

[jonathan180iq]

Not so much accepting, but acknowledging. I've held discussions with atheists in where they didn't come to believe in Thor as I do, but they were able to understand why I believe as I do to where the statement "Thor does not exist" wouldn't entirely apply.

Yeah - we're on the page for this one.

Well, the turtle shell would require a view of the Earth or universe outside of the Earth or universe - that one's a little more harder to argue for. But what do you mean by the last statement; not addressing the object itself?

I've gotten into conversations with Pantheists before about the differences between the effects of nature and the effects of deities, attempting to understand why they reference something natural, like rainfall, sunshine, or lightning, as evidence that the Universe is god and not simply as evidence for what they are - natural phenomenon. I've gone so far as call the differences in worldviews little more than semantics, much to the chagrin of the believers. I feel that in referencing such phenomenon, as you did, that you're simply supplying evidence for the effect, and not the object of discussion which would be the god(s) itself. (I think I probably should have used the word "subject", yeah?)

My son and I have been reading the Odyssey, and he's been making constant references to Zeus during thunder storms, Aeolus on windy days, and Sirens whenever what sounds like a beautiful female voice comes on the radio. I've shown him images of elephant skulls as we've attempted to discuss where the idea for beings like Polyphemus and his Cyclops race might have originated. It's both fun and educational. But I have a problem with suggesting that an elephant skull, for example, is actually evidence that Cyclopes exist, and that therefore Odysseus and his travels are possibly true stories biographied by Homer... do you follow?

Studying the effect of something is great. Attributing it to an object(subject) that is without substantiation is something else. With all due respect, saying that lightning is evidence for Zeus or Thor means that it is equally evidence for Doc and Marty coming back from a trip to the future.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Except that it doesn't solve the 'paradox' at all, it just moves it. It provides no answer as to how said creative intelligence came to exist and all the evidence we have indicates that creative intelligence is the result of the laws of nature.

You end up with an exactly equivalent paradox: creative intelligence is explained by... the very same creative intelligence.

And BTW, my atheist lack of belief does not involve believing that the laws of nature are explained by the laws of nature - I have no idea at all why there are laws of nature. I'm content with not knowing. I don't need a just-so story that purports to explain it with something equally unexplained.


That's a bold and somewhat bizarre claim. How do you think our intelligence "transcends nature"? Again, all the evidence suggests we are the product of nature and hence all that we produce is a product of nature as well.


The label 'supernatural' seems the be a euphemism for "it's magic, so we don't have to think about it any more"...

two entirely distinct paradoxes.

The 'first cause' paradox applies to any explanation 'where did that come from?' and it's not only a wash, it's a moot point, because here we are, we know there is a solution somehow.

The other paradox is creation without creativity, the infinite regression of natural mechanisms that require being supported by more natural mechanisms.
, automated laws ultimately writing themselves in the absence of any genuinely creative power.

Whether we label it supernatural or not is semantics, the fact remains that creative intelligence is a phenomena that we know exists, and has a capacity to solve the creativity problem that nature alone simply does not

 

[Guy Threepwood]

They don't "do" anything. They just are.

so they contain no information that is specific to performing a function or any meaning, they don't spell any word other than 'oooooooo'

Do you think, that given enough time and space, these might accidentally develop their own intelligence and ponder their own existence, based on their tendency to form vaguely round patterns?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don't know. Why don't you tell us what every human has observed every single time time an apple has fallen?

I'm simply not going to play this silly word game with you. Gravity works as advertised at the non-relativistic (high-velocity/high-gravity) level, and at the non-relativistic level is adequately described by Newton's laws.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

You don't seem able to see that you are doing what you are decrying. In the second paragraph, you are implicitly saying that "creative intelligence" (the existence thereof) is explained only by "the existence of creative intelligence."

I am more comfortable with the idea that perhaps, in the end, there is no "cause" for there being something rather than nothing than most theists seem to be. I become more and more convinced that it ultimately be true that "nothing is impossible." (Meaning that it is impossible for nothing to exist, because existence itself implies something.) I can also more easily than theists accept the idea that "maybe we'll never really know."

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You don't seem able to see that you are doing what you are decrying. In the second paragraph, you are implicitly saying that "creative intelligence" (the existence thereof) is explained only by "the existence of creative intelligence."

I am more comfortable with the idea that perhaps, in the end, there is no "cause" for there being something rather than nothing than most theists seem to be. I become more and more convinced that it ultimately be true that "nothing is impossible." (Meaning that it is impossible for nothing to exist, because existence itself implies something.) I can also more easily than theists accept the idea that "maybe we'll never really know."

I acknowledge my faith as such, do you?

if nothing is impossible we must allow that anything is possible. 'chance' can only become the best explanation where an intelligent agent is utterly forbidden, and we have no basis to make such restrictions- other than not feeling 'comfortable' with the idea

 

[Stevicus]

Sorry. I misread the initial question.
Pick a thing - I believe that many things do not exist, like Jackelopes for example. They do not exist until they are proven to exist. The same is true of anything concerning human knowledge.

Here ya go:

Of course, this is humor, all in good fun. But it does point up the human capacity for imaginative deception and (sometimes) outright fraud. That's another reason to be skeptical about evidence itself and some of the conclusions people might draw from it.

Or it might be similar with people who claim to have seen UFOs, yet they turn out to be weather balloons or some other explainable phenomena. Obviously they saw "something," but they're not sure what it was. Sometimes, a person requesting proof may unreasonably conclude that the person saw "absolutely nothing" because they can't prove it, but others might meet them halfway and say "Yeah, you probably saw something, but we don't know what it is."

 

[Kilgore Trout]

In religious discussions, I've found so many people using the phrase "the burden of proof belongs..." far too often. And I think it's too often misused.

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) really means that anyone who brings claim that seeks to deny the "default" (or obvious) conclusion to anything, is required to produce evidence to support that claim. If there's a grocery store on the corner, and I make the claim, "there's a grocery store on the corner," then I've got nothing to do. But if Fred claims, "it only looks like there's a grocery store on the corner, but it's an illusion," well, George has some 'splainin' to do.

This, of course, brings up the problem of what is "obvious," but for the most part, I would suggest that if we can observe it and (generally) agree on it, it is "obvious." There's an oak tree in the park -- we agree. There's a ghost in the castle -- nobody's seen it and we don't agree an it isn't "obvious."

This, of course, leads us to ask "what is 'evidence?'" Apples falling is "evidence" of gravity. Is a verse in Matthew "evidence" of God's communication with humans? Is a contradictory verse in John "evidence" that either the Matthew verse is wrong, or possible that biblical verses can't actually tell you anything about God?

I wrote this in the philosophy forum because I thought that those with a philosophical bent might want to weigh in.

The question of "burden of proof," is never a problem or issue with people who have it, and can actually meet it.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Here ya go:

Of course, this is humor, all in good fun. But it does point up the human capacity for imaginative deception and (sometimes) outright fraud. That's another reason to be skeptical about evidence itself and some of the conclusions people might draw from it.

Or it might be similar with people who claim to have seen UFOs, yet they turn out to be weather balloons or some other explainable phenomena. Obviously they saw "something," but they're not sure what it was. Sometimes, a person requesting proof may unreasonably conclude that the person saw "absolutely nothing" because they can't prove it, but others might meet them halfway and say "Yeah, you probably saw something, but we don't know what it is."

Right. Which is what I think is true of all religious experiences. I'd never say that someone didn't actually have a personal experience, or even that they can't substantiate their mental position with some loose amount of "evidence". I'm simply going to forever be highly skeptical of the assertion that said experienced was caused by an ultra elusive supernatural phenomenon or being when never in the history of human records have those things ever been proven to exist.

A bright light in the sky that you've never seen before is one thing. Claiming that it absolutely must be an advanced organism flying through the cosmos in a craft capable of covering light years within a period of the organisms life is another thing entirely...

 

[jonathan180iq]

They're evidence for all of them. Which one is most likely to be true? That's a separate question.


It does, and it is.

As I said, combined with other evidence, it could be an element of a case for the existence of unicorns.

I think you have a very different idea of what evidence is than I do. Look at it this way: say you had an argument that solidly establishes some premise as true; you can recognize that every factual premise in that argument is part of the evidence for that conclusion... correct?

Now... at an intermediate stage, where you've only gotten 90% there, those facts are no less evidence than they were before, right?

But here's the thing: we can get 90% of the way to proving utterly false conclusions. We can't get to 100% - since the conclusions are false - but how far we get along in an argument for a conclusion before we fail is no sign of its truth or its likelihood of being true.

Here's all that you need to ask yourself to classify something as evidence:

- is it a factual matter?
- is it itself true?
- if it was combined with some other set of premises or arguments (which may or may not be demonstrated), would support the case for the conclusion being argued?

If the answer to all three things is "yes", then the thing is evidence. This is how "a Ryder rental truck was seen in front of the Oklahoma City federal building" becomes evidence for "Timothy McVeigh committed a terrorist act", and it's also how hoofprints become evidence for unicorns. Neither one is sufficient by itself to demonstrate the conclusion, but both can be used as one supporting element of a larger case.

I understand what you're saying.
I don't know if it was you and I before who were having a conversation about how individual arguments for Flat Earth can actually be fairly decent when you take them individually. It's the fact that there is no comprehensive argument, and that many of the individual arguments contradict others, that's the problem.

And that's the case with what we're talking about here. The hoof prints are certainly a piece of evidence - but they can also be immediately rejected as having a good conclusion -which I'll admit is a separate question - but it's a necessary question.

The fact that Timothy McVeigh wore a yellow shirt once, for example, has little to nothing to do with his guilt, right? His shoes size, similarly, means nothing in the grand case against proving his plot. Many people wear yellow shirts and many people share his shoe size. Those peripheral pieces of "evidence" are not actually part of the case.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I feel that in referencing such phenomenon, as you did, that you're simply supplying evidence for the effect, and not the object of discussion which would be the god(s) itself.

It may be a difference in the Heathen perspective, as opposed to the pantheist view. There's more to it, but in a nutshell Thor is the thunderstorm in so much as the thunderstorm is an effect of Thor. To worship Thor is to appreciate and celebrate the storm (among other things, admittedly).

With all due respect, saying that lightning is evidence for Zeus or Thor means that it is equally evidence for Doc and Marty coming back from a trip to the future.

True, it's not exactly evidence for them, but I only said that those are Gods that are visible to me, in my opinion and belief

 

[Nous]

Of course it does. A video of someone committing a crime, for example, is a heck of a lot better evidence than the testimony of a gang-banger from an enemy gang testifying "I saw him do it, your honor!" The totality of all of the evidence I have ever encountered about the Christian God, what God demands in terms of belief, Heaven and Hell -- all of it -- is exactly such hear-say. The same is true for Mohammed's "conversations" with Gabriel, and for the entire Hindu pantheon. Ganesha has never turned up a festival unless it was humans in costume. Gabriel could have talked to anybody, so why an illiterate tent maker? Such hear-say doesn't impress me at all -- especially in light of the fact that all these "miracles" seem somehow to have completely stopped a long time ago. Gotta be a reason for that, you know.

Do you have some difficulty with the nuances of conversational English? Are you going to require that every sentence be carefully structured that there is 100% precision in the meaning and intent of every tittle and jot?

So how would you respond if one of these Christian fundamentalists who bother you so much were to use your strategy and simply assert that it is so very likely that the Gospels are true, therefore the God of the Bible probably exists?

 

[ChristineM]

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



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



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.

All are entitled to their opinion, some base those opinions on faith, others base them on evidence. You can argue with einsteins mass energy equivalence equation all you want, to date it has never been proved wrong.

Rubbish. The laws of nature exist, are proven to exist, can be observed and measured, without them existence is not possible, no paradox involved. You are making up nonsense to justify your belief

Of course you Hebe no such restriction, nonsense and guesswork don't need to be restricted by facts.

What? That does not make sense... Wait a moment i am detecting a pattern here.

And there is nothing in science to prevent a sand dune spontaneously forming into an elaborate sand castle... Your point being?

 

[Nous]

I'm simply not going to play this silly word game with you. Gravity works as advertised at the non-relativistic (high-velocity/high-gravity) level, and at the non-relativistic level is adequately described by Newton's laws.

Newton's laws "adequately" describe the precession of Mercury's perihelion? Isn't that a word game?