Strong atheism and it's burden of proof.

ThePainefulTruth · May 21, 2015

jonathan180iq said:
I'll just chime in for a sec, since this concept seems to be repeated over and over multiplaces places around the forum.

No.
Cosmology is not concerned with God.

IOW, cosmologists aren't concerned with the source/cause of the Big Bang or universe? Or, according to hard atheists, they are only interested in it if it doesn't involve the possibility of God being the cause. I guess Bible thumping takes on many forms.

Take it up with these atheists--though I doubt they'll want to bang their heads on this brick wall for very long.....either:

Stephen Hawking (atheist-skeptic) A Brief History of Time (1988)pp. 8-9
“An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!".

Victor Stenger (atheist) in Huffpost Blog. 06/30/11
“In short, the world looks just like it should look if there is no God with these attributes. True that this does not rule out other gods, such a deist god that does not act in the universe. But we can rule out the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God to a high degree of probability.”

Lawrence Krauss (scientific skeptic) debate with William L. Craig youtube.com/watch?v=Fs_pgaSrxP8 begin @ 3:15…Uploaded 03/30/11
“I actually think deism, the possible existence of a divine intelligence is not an implausible postulate. And I won’t argue against it. It could be, I mean the Universe is an amazing place."....
...."So I think the possible existence of a divine intelligence is perfectly plausible and addresses some of the perplexing issues associated with the beginning of the Universe."

And though he isn't a scientist, this is interesting as well:

Richard Dawkins (atheist) debate with John Lennox www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw begin @ 4:30
"We could take a deist god, sort of god of the physicists. A god of somebody like Paul Davies who devised the laws of physics, god the mathematician, god who put together the cosmos in the first place and then sat back and watched everything happen and that would be…the deist god would be one…I think one would be…one could make a reasonable respectable case for that. Not a case that I would accept, but I think it’s a serious discussion that we could have."
@ 37:45
"You could possibly persuade me that there was some kind of creative force in the universe, there was some kind of physical mathematical genius who created everything…the expanding universe, devised quantum theory, relativity, and all that. You can possibly persuade me of that."

Open minds.

Bunyip · May 21, 2015

ThePainefulTruth said:
IOW, cosmologists aren't concerned with the source/cause of the Big Bang or universe? Or, according to hard atheists, they are only interested in it if it doesn't involve the possibility of God being the cause. I guess Bible thumping takes on many forms.

Take it up with these atheists--though I doubt they'll want to bang their heads on this brick wall for very long.....either:

Stephen Hawking (atheist-skeptic) A Brief History of Time (1988)pp. 8-9
“An expanding universe does not preclude a creator, but it does place limits on when he might have carried out his job!".

Victor Stenger (atheist) in Huffpost Blog. 06/30/11
“In short, the world looks just like it should look if there is no God with these attributes. True that this does not rule out other gods, such a deist god that does not act in the universe. But we can rule out the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God to a high degree of probability.”

Lawrence Krauss (scientific skeptic) debate with William L. Craig youtube.com/watch?v=Fs_pgaSrxP8 begin @ 3:15…Uploaded 03/30/11
“I actually think deism, the possible existence of a divine intelligence is not an implausible postulate. And I won’t argue against it. It could be, I mean the Universe is an amazing place."....
...."So I think the possible existence of a divine intelligence is perfectly plausible and addresses some of the perplexing issues associated with the beginning of the Universe."

And though he isn't a scientist, this is interesting as well:

Richard Dawkins (atheist) debate with John Lennox www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0UIbd0eLxw begin @ 4:30
"We could take a deist god, sort of god of the physicists. A god of somebody like Paul Davies who devised the laws of physics, god the mathematician, god who put together the cosmos in the first place and then sat back and watched everything happen and that would be…the deist god would be one…I think one would be…one could make a reasonable respectable case for that. Not a case that I would accept, but I think it’s a serious discussion that we could have."
@ 37:45
"You could possibly persuade me that there was some kind of creative force in the universe, there was some kind of physical mathematical genius who created everything…the expanding universe, devised quantum theory, relativity, and all that. You can possibly persuade me of that."

Open minds.

Yeah mate, seams to be taking a long time for you to figure it out - atheism has nothing to do with cosmology.

ThePainefulTruth · May 21, 2015

Bunyip said:
Yeah mate, seams to be taking a long time for you to figure it out - atheism has nothing to do with cosmology.

Oy, takin' longer than most for it to sink in......just gotta get past that part about admitting it to y'self, yeh. G'day mate.

Bunyip · May 21, 2015

ThePainefulTruth said:
Oy, takin' longer than most for it to sink in......just gotta get past that part about admitting it to y'self, yeh. G'day mate.

Take your time. As I said, atheism has no relationship to cosmology.

raph · Jun 9, 2015

Atheism & Theism are both unproven.

Therefore, whenever someone claims, that Atheism or Theism is true, he has the burden of proof. The only ones without burden of proof would be agnostics.

Bunyip · Jun 9, 2015

raph said:
Atheism & Theism are both unproven.

Therefore, whenever someone claims, that Atheism or Theism is true, he has the burden of proof. The only ones without burden of proof would be agnostics.

What do you even mean by proving atheism true? Atheism is true - there are atheists. They do not believe in god. That is true.

raph · Jun 9, 2015

Bunyip said:
What do you even mean by proving atheism true? Atheism is true - there are atheists. They do not believe in god. That is true.

Sry, I thought it was clear, that I meant the claims of atheism. Usually, when people talk about a religion being true, they have the claims of that religion in mind. Atheists who claim, that there is no God, have the burden of proof. That applies to anyone, who claims something, that is not proven.

9-10ths_Penguin · Jun 9, 2015

raph said:
Atheism & Theism are both unproven.

Therefore, whenever someone claims, that Atheism or Theism is true, he has the burden of proof. The only ones without burden of proof would be agnostics.

Agnostics most certainly have a burden of proof. The claim of agnosticism (i.e. that the question of the existence of gods can't be answered) is a positive claim with a burden of proof.

And it should be pointed out that strong atheism (or theism, for that matter) doesn't necessarily make its claim with certainty. IMO, someone who concludes that, based on the facts at hand right now, it's more reasonable to believe that gods do not exist than to believe that they do is a strong atheist. An atheist who makes this claim doesn't imply that he's omniscient... unlike the strawman strong atheists that often get thrown around.

ThePainefulTruth · Jun 9, 2015

raph said:
Atheism & Theism are both unproven.

Therefore, whenever someone claims, that Atheism or Theism is true, he has the burden of proof. The only ones without burden of proof would be agnostics.

raph said:
Sry, I thought it was clear, that I meant the claims of atheism. Usually, when people talk about a religion being true, they have the claims of that religion in mind. Atheists who claim, that there is no God, have the burden of proof. That applies to anyone, who claims something, that is not proven.

We have a crop of atheists in denial here, mostly, I think, recent victims of some some of our more corrupt academic philosophy schools. This latest ploy is in the vein of the old arguments that disbelief or unbelief are somehow different from not believing (in God). The idea, and I use that word loosely, is to call themselves atheists while practicing nihilism or apatheism. That way they can fool themselves at least that they have a coherent philosophy. And though it's obvious I probably should mention that under this ruse, the Truth is irrelevant. It's this type of "thinking" that spawned the original "talking to a brick wall" and "knock yourself out" analogies. This'll probably go on for another 6 months or so and then they'll try another spin, er......tack.

9-10ths_Penguin said:
Agnostics most certainly have a burden of proof. The claim of agnosticism (i.e. that the question of the existence of gods can't be answered) is a positive claim with a burden of proof.

Admittedly some agnostics put it that way, and for them, you're right. But most, like me, an agnostic deist, don't claim agnosticism means anything more than God or other philosophical points to be simply unknown. Your denial forces you to emphasize the false reading while ignoring the other. After all, the etymology of the word is from the Greek agnostos meaning (a) not + (gnostos) known.

And it should be pointed out that strong atheism (or theism, for that matter) doesn't necessarily make its claim with certainty.

But this is what it means because it's in opposition to weak/soft/agnostic atheism. This is in obvious response to some well known atheists (Krauss, Dawkins) saying they can't rule out God. If you're an agnostic atheist, fess up and take like a man, instead of, again, torturing the dictionary in order to be "right".

Someone who concludes that, based on the facts at hand right now, it's more reasonable to believe that gods do not exist than to believe that they do is a strong atheist. An atheist who makes this claim doesn't imply that he's omniscient... unlike the strawman strong atheists that often get thrown around.

Ah, more waterboarding of the dictionary. What then do you call an atheist who claims certainty that there is no God? What do you call a theist who claims equal certainty that there is? You can google strong theism and all the hits I've found agree with what I'm saying; but then there that issue you have with dictionaries which, for obvious reasons, makes rational communication impossible.

Ponder This · Jun 10, 2015

Burden of Proof
Strong Atheism
Strong atheism bears a burden of proof because strong atheism asserts a claim.

Absence of evidence is an Argument from Ignorance and thus does not make the claim valid.

Evidence of Absence is valid but requires a method of detection. So before you can use Evidence of Absence as an argument to satisfy the Burden of Proof of Strong Atheism, you have showcase your method of detection.

How do we know your method of detection reliably detects deities?

George-ananda · Jun 10, 2015

Bunyip said:
I often see Strong atheism as being said to bear a burden of proof. As I do not see how this can be the case, I would appreciate any input from members on this notion.
Does strong atheism bear a burden of proof?
If so what would fulfil it?

Neither side bears a burden of proof as what could proof/disproof look like? Sounds like 'burden of proof' is an impossible request.

When it comes down to it, all we have is what each of us believes is the most reasonable understanding.

9-10ths_Penguin · Jun 10, 2015

Ponder This said:
Burden of Proof
Strong Atheism
Strong atheism bears a burden of proof because strong atheism asserts a claim.

Absence of evidence is an Argument from Ignorance and thus does not make the claim valid.

Inferring that a thing is not present from an absence of evidence isn't an argument from ignorance if the existence of the thing implies other phenomena we can test. For instance, if the claim is "Penguin's car is filled to the roof with chocolate pudding", the fact that I can breathe while in my car implies that the claim is false even before considering anything else.

Evidence of Absence is valid but requires a method of detection. So before you can use Evidence of Absence as an argument to satisfy the Burden of Proof of Strong Atheism, you have showcase your method of detection.

How do we know your method of detection reliably detects deities?

For starters, what are the minimum characteristics of a deity?

Could an entity that's so insignificant that we don't even notice it or that's so irrelevant that it may as well not exist ever be considered a god?

When it comes right down to it, you're splitting hairs. Even if I can't absolutely exclude the possibility of some unknown deity hiding in some unexplored corner of the universe, I don't care. Such a god wouldn't be available as justification for any religion or theistic belief.

When the theists have to resort to the old "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" line, they're already conceding. If there is an absence of evidence for gods, then all theist beliefs are unjustified. At that point, the best they can hope for is that they might have just happened to have blindly stumbled on the right answer in an "a stopped clock is right twice a day" sort of way.

... and even if you're coincidentally right about the existence of your god, you'd still have to throw away any revelation or miracle claim that serves as a foundation for your religion (since if any of these claims were justified, then they'd be evidence, and the whole "absence of evidence" issue would be moot).

I don't know why any theist would settle for such a low bar.

Willamena · Jun 10, 2015

9-10ths_Penguin said:
And it should be pointed out that strong atheism (or theism, for that matter) doesn't necessarily make its claim with certainty.

Hopefully that's incorrect. The act of belief is investment in a proposition that is seen to be true. The person who goes around believing there are no gods isn't pretending or unsure, else they are most likely failing to believe or using the word "belief" rather loosely.

9-10ths_Penguin · Jun 10, 2015

Willamena said:
Hopefully that's incorrect. The act of belief is investment in a proposition that is seen to be true. The person who goes around believing there are no gods isn't pretending or unsure, else they are most likely failing to believe or using the word "belief" rather loosely.

So... in your version, anyone who doesn't treat their beliefs as unquestionable fact is using the term "belief" wrong?

Willamena · Jun 10, 2015

9-10ths_Penguin said:
So... in your version, anyone who doesn't treat their beliefs as unquestionable fact is using the term "belief" wrong?

No doubt they're saying what they mean, but they're not necessarily strong atheists.

Ponder This · Jun 10, 2015

9-10ths_Penguin said:
Inferring that a thing is not present from an absence of evidence isn't an argument from ignorance if the existence of the thing implies other phenomena we can test. For instance, if the claim is "Penguin's car is filled to the roof with chocolate pudding", the fact that I can breathe while in my car implies that the claim is false even before considering anything else.

For starters, what are the minimum characteristics of a deity?

I took the liberty of added emphasis in your quote to show you that you gave an example of using Evidence of Absence instead of Absence of Evidence. The distinction is subtle.

The question of testable characteristics of a deity is an interesting one, particularly if it leads to a method of detection that allows the use of Evidence of Absence. Since Strong Atheists are making the claim, perhaps they can tell us what they mean when they use the word "god" so that we can more deeply understand their arguments.

9-10ths_Penguin · Jun 10, 2015

Ponder This said:
I took the liberty of added emphasis in your quote to show you that you gave an example of using Evidence of Absence instead of Absence of Evidence. The distinction is subtle.

I think you're misunderstanding my point. An absence of evidence is important if, were the thing real, evidence ought to exist.

The question of testable characteristics of a deity is an interesting one, particularly if it leads to a method of detection that allows the use of Evidence of Absence. Since Strong Atheists are making the claim, perhaps they can tell us what they mean when they use the word "god" so that we can more deeply understand their arguments.

So you aren't even going to touch the last part of my post? Is the line between "your beliefs are completely unjustified and irrational" and "your beliefs are completely unjustified and irrational... and couldn't even be coincidentally true" really where you want to make your stand?

Bunyip · Jun 10, 2015

George-ananda said:
Neither side bears a burden of proof as what could proof/disproof look like? Sounds like 'burden of proof' is an impossible request.

When it comes down to it, all we have is what each of us believes is the most reasonable understanding.

Well proof of theism would be really simple George, we just need evidence of a god.
If a god exists, we need evidence of it's existence to prove theism.
Proving the existence of something is easy - find one.
You could prove that there are small blue aliens by finding one, the point is that the ABSENCE of small blue aliens is not proveable. Their presence sure is.

ThePainefulTruth · Jun 11, 2015

George-ananda said:
Neither side bears a burden of proof as what could proof/disproof look like? Sounds like 'burden of proof' is an impossible request.

When it comes down to it, all we have is what each of us believes is the most reasonable understanding.

Not if we don't even try to be reasonable.

Willamena said:
Hopefully that's incorrect. The act of belief is investment in a proposition that is seen to be true. The person who goes around believing there are no gods isn't pretending or unsure, else they are most likely failing to believe or using the word "belief" rather loosely.

Either we are100% sure, or we aren't. Just because we can't defend a position doesn't mean we got to take both sides.

Willamena said:
No doubt they're saying what they mean, but they're not necessarily strong atheists.

Uhhhhh.? As someone famous once said, "If they can't say what they mean, the don't know what they mean." Same for if what you say isn't what you mean. Knowhatamean?

9-10ths_Penguin said:
I think you're misunderstanding my point. An absence of evidence is important if, were the thing real, evidence ought to exist.

So, here's the universe, it's real, where's the evidence that explains its reality? Even if you claim that it's always been, then where's the evidence for that?

So you aren't even going to touch the last part of my post? Is the line between "your beliefs are completely unjustified and irrational" and "your beliefs are completely unjustified and irrational... and couldn't even be coincidentally true" really where you want to make your stand?[/QUOTE]

Bunyip said:
You could prove that there are small blue aliens by finding one, the point is that the ABSENCE of small blue aliens is not proveable. Their presence sure is.

Two brick walls walk into a bar. The bartender says, "we don't serve your kind in here"; to which BW #1 says, "Tuesday Weld was mine own far across the sea y'see". To which the barkeep responded, "Which is why we can't serve you. You just punch a button and parts of talking points fall out, none of which have ever been a drink order." BW #1 immediately crumbled into a pile of brick and mortar. Seeing this, BW #2 exclaimed, "Shattering! And the dish ran away with the spoon", then resumed doing what brick walls do.

George-ananda · Jun 11, 2015

ThePainefulTruth said:
Not if we don't even try to be reasonable.

I agree and I am reasonable.

Strong atheism and it's burden of proof.

Romantic-Cynic

pro scapegoat

Romantic-Cynic

pro scapegoat

Member

pro scapegoat

Member

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Romantic-Cynic

Well-Known Member

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Just me

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Just me

Well-Known Member

1/10 Subway Stalinist

pro scapegoat

Romantic-Cynic

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism