Strong atheism and it's burden of proof.

[Bunyip]

All strong atheism could possibly be burdened to challenge is the evidence presented for the entity in question. As it stands it is the default.

 

[Bunyip]

In the video in my above post the guy says something along the lines of:

"The default position is our known world, you are trying to claim that something outside of that world is true without providing sufficient evidence; therefore you have the burden of proof."

I'm seeing (after some research) that most atheists and skeptics cling very much to the default position.
The position that we should not fully accept something without sufficient evidence for it.

The more hardcore atheist types, such as myself, are also endowed with the BOP due to our outright claims of no God(s) existing.
Which kinda sucks but, eh, what can ya do

But that is the point - no gods existing is still the default. The burden of proof is the same - it is pending evidence to challenge.


Were I to claim to you that Floobergunes made all of the universe's Moons, your disbelieving that claim would not demand that you search the universe for Floobergunes.

 

[Thief]

In the video in my above post the guy says something along the lines of:

"The default position is our known world, you are trying to claim that something outside of that world is true without providing sufficient evidence; therefore you have the burden of proof."

I'm seeing (after some research) that most atheists and skeptics cling very much to the default position.
The position that we should not fully accept something without sufficient evidence for it.

The more hardcore atheist types, such as myself, are also endowed with the BOP due to our outright claims of no God(s) existing.
Which kinda sucks but, eh, what can ya do

This world teaches....for every action there is reaction.

I say.....life after death is a result pending.
The lack of proof doesn't take away the possible reaction.

The lack of faith might.

 

[Bunyip]

This world teaches....for every action there is reaction.

I say.....life after death is a result pending.
The lack of proof doesn't take away the possible reaction.

The lack of faith might.

And it might not, seems a safe bet.

 

[Deathbydefault]

But that is the point - no gods existing is still the default. The burden of proof is the same - it is pending evidence to challenge.

Well I see it from both sides now and that's why I say both of you are correct.
His point is that atheists have a BOP if they outright claim God is not real, which is true.
Our point, more or less, is that we disbelieve due to insufficient evidence, which is a correct.

Atheistic agnostics, such as yourself, fall directly in line with the default position, as we've discovered.
You only fully accept things with sufficient enough evidence, that's the skeptic in us all lol.
So you stating God is not a credible claim due to the lack of supporting evidence would be correct.

He, on the other hand, indirectly agrees with that ( ^ ) statement.
What he was saying is that if an atheist were to claim that their is no God(s) then he/she would have to bear a BOP as well.
But simply stating that you disbelieve in God(s) from there being no evidence does not give you a BOP, it's objective.
It is the default position.

When someone tries to add more water to the cup of our knowledge we have to make sure that they are actually adding water, not air.
But there are those out there that just prefer to drink air.

Peace.

 

[Deathbydefault]

This world teaches....for every action there is reaction.

I say.....life after death is a result pending.
The lack of proof doesn't take away the possible reaction.

The lack of faith might.

I actually agree with you, on the third line anyways.
There is no proof for God(s) at all, physically.
But there is still a chance of the existence, no matter how close to 0% it may be.

 

[Bunyip]

I actually agree with you, on the third line anyways.
There is no proof for God(s) at all, physically.
But there is still a chance of the existence, no matter how close to 0% it may be.

Sure, I agree. And thanks for your contribution.

 

[serp777]

Bleh, I look away for a bit and have to deal with all these replies.
Well I'm going to make short of this one...





Math analogies annoy me, don't lump logical universal language with a petty semi-subjective debate.
I don't care if a negative is proven in math, life and personal beliefs aren't math.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here, I'm going for middle ground now and saying we are both correct and incorrect on some of our points.
Please watch the video to conclusion, it's not very long at all.

Peace.

Math and logic are tightly interwined and we are dealing with philosophical logic. We are having a discussion about burtden of proof and that isnot subjective. Everyone should be subject to the same burden of proof rules regardless of belief. Its an objective standard. Using the burden of proof rules as established by math and logic is the most sensible thing to do since the language can be converted to propositional logic which is then subject to logical rules.

 

[serp777]

That is is a transparent attempt to shoft the burden of proof by a trick of semantics. The burden of proof is born by the party claim I ng that something DOES exist. I don't need to, the burden of proof is upon the party claiming an entity DOES exist. No, not at all
The burden of proof is on the positive claim - the claim of existence. No I don't . I, like most atheists ak agnostic - agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive positions. No, Dawkins identifies as an agnostic atheist, as I do. So did Hitchens. Nope. The burden is on the party making the POSITIVE claim. Only arguing that something DOES exist is a positive claim.

No, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim whatever it is. I cited you the wiki. All philosophers and theologians and scientists accept the premises of burden of proof that I have laid out. If a scientist went out and said that gravity does not exist he would have a huge burden of proof. If a creationists went out and said evolution is false they would also have a huge burden of proof even though its a negative claim. I have no idea why you're so enamored with positive vs negative claim. Any claim regarding fact requires proof. Things aren't wrong by default just because you dont have proof for them--thats called an argument from ignorance. Ive made tthis distinction several times now and you havent actually responded to the sustenance of my argument.

And finally you keep on making another point that i have repeatedly defeated:
You've said that you don't have to prove whether Yahweh exists or not. But you said Yahweh certainly doesnt exist, so how do you know this unless you have a proof? Proving anything to certainty, even negative claims requires proof. If you don't say anything and a theist says that God exists, then the burden of proof is entirely on him. Again just because the theist hasn't proved God doesn't exist doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. This would be an argument from ignorance as ive outlined. Before you go and start talking about positive claims again, note that i've refuted that several times already and cited the wiki showing that anyone who makes a claim has a burden of proof.

 

[Bunyip]

No, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim whatever it is. I cited you the wiki. All philosophers and theologians and scientists accept the premises of burden of proof that I have laid out.

Atheism is a response - a response to the claim that God exists. Absent of God claims, there would be no atheism would there?

That God exists is the claim atheism responds to, it is a positive claim.

Without that claim, atheism has no meaning.

If a scientist went out and said that gravity does not exist he would have a huge burden of proof.

Yes, there is evidence of gravity.

If a creationists went out and said evolution is false they would also have a huge burden of proof even though its a negative claim.

Of course, there is evidence for evolution.

I have no idea why you're so enamored with positive vs negative claim. Any claim regarding fact requires proof. Things aren't wrong by default just because you dont have proof for them--thats called an argument from ignorance.

That was not my argument, nice strawman.

Iv'e made this distinction

No - strawman.

several times now and you havent actually responded to the sustenance of my argument.

No, you just keep ignoring the bits of my argument you can not address.

The claim that God does not exist can only exist in response to the claim God does exist.
Atheism is a response to a claim.

 

[Bunyip]

No, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim whatever it is. I cited you the wiki. All philosophers and theologians and scientists accept the premises of burden of proof that I have laid out. If a scientist went out and said that gravity does not exist he would have a huge burden of proof. If a creationists went out and said evolution is false they would also have a huge burden of proof even though its a negative claim. I have no idea why you're so enamored with positive vs negative claim. Any claim regarding fact requires proof. Things aren't wrong by default just because you dont have proof for them--thats called an argument from ignorance. Ive made tthis distinction several times now and you havent actually responded to the sustenance of my argument.

And finally you keep on making another point that i have repeatedly defeated:
You've said that you don't have to prove whether Yahweh exists or not. But you said Yahweh certainly doesnt exist, so how do you know this unless you have a proof?

The explanation I gave was because the attributes given to Yahweh are impossible, to be immaterial and external to time is to not exist. The universe is the set of all things - to be external to the set of all things is to not exist.

Proving anything to certainty, even negative claims requires proof.

That was a proof. Unless you have evidence of any immaterial entity external to time? What does it mean to exist as a being - other than to occupy time and space in this universe?

If you don't say anything and a theist says that God exists, then the burden of proof is entirely on him. Again just because the theist hasn't proved God doesn't exist doesn't mean that God doesn't exist. This would be an argument from ignorance as ive outlined.

Until a theist somewhere proves a God exists, atheism is the default.

Before you go and start talking about positive claims again, note that i've refuted that several times already and cited the wiki showing that anyone who makes a claim has a burden of proof.

Disbelief in an unevidenced claim (atheism) is not a claim. No matter how you spin it.

Would you clarify which god we are discussing please? If other than Yahweh.

 

[Bunyip]

Serp777

If atheism is a claim regarding a fact - wouldn't God need to be a fact? How can believing there isn't an unevidenced thing be a claim relating to a fact?

 

[serp777]

Atheism is a response - a response to the claim that God exists. Absent of God claims, there would be no atheism would there?

That God exists is the claim atheism responds to, it is a positive claim.

Without that claim, atheism has no meaning. Yes, there is evidence of gravity. Of course, there is evidence for evolution. That was not my argument, nice strawman. No - strawman.
No, you just keep ignoring the bits of my argument you can not address.

The claim that God does not exist can only exist in response to the claim God does exist.
Atheism is a response to a claim.

Atheism is a response - a response to the claim that God exists. Absent of God claims, there would be no atheism would there?

We were talking about the burden of proof. I said the burden of proof rests on anyone who makes a factual claim which you then disagreed with. I never said ATHEISM had an inherent burden of proof in case you thought I was implying that. Atheism isnt the claim that God certainly does not exist. You said you didnt need to prove the claim that Yahweh doesnt exist combined and you said yahweh certainly doesnt exist; you do obviously do need to prove that negative claim or else all you can do is say you dont know the truth of this statement. This is how you were implying an argument from ignorance which is why i havent made any strawmen arguments here. Finally the whole positive vs negative claim is irrelevant and you keep missing this point again and again and again. Here is the definition of burden of proof once again:

" the obligation to prove one's assertion."
Regardless of whether positive or negative assertions.

"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true"

I don't know how much more clear I can make it. You're obsessed with the whole positive vs negative claim and somehow rejecting that a negative claim also requires evidence. You havent justified your position about negative claims not required proof at all. Any factual claim beiing asserted requires proof whatever it is. All you do is say "NO,NO, its the positive claim that has the burden of proof." But as you just agreed you would need evidence to support the negative claim that gravity doesn't exist or evolution is false. So sometimes a negative claim requires proof? At least be consistent or tell me about your custom theory of philosophical burden of proof. And if you're about to call strawman and make the fallacy fallacy here I will go back and cite where you have talked about positive claims only needing proof.

No, you just keep ignoring the bits of my argument you can not address.

Name what parts i have ignored. I havent ignored one part of your argument. Ive addressed all of it easily. This kind of statement is wrothless when you fail to back it up with any examples; just white noise.

 

[serp777]

Serp777

If atheism is a claim regarding a fact - wouldn't God need to be a fact? How can believing there isn't an unevidenced thing be a claim relating to a fact?

I didnt say atheism was a claim regarding fact. As ive said repetedly atheism is the position that GOd probably doesnt exist because there is no supporting evidence. Therefore atheism doesnt have a burden of proof unless it makes the claim that God certainly doesnt exist.

How can believing there isn't an unevidenced thing be a claim relating to a fact?

Why do beliefs matter? THis is about claims in a debate. The claim that there is no God requires proof. The existence of God is a fact so showing something to be true or false requires a burden of proof or else it is simply unknown. Unknown is the default scientific position. Science doesnt say that things are false until proven true. SO God isnt false until he is proven true. Its unknown whether God exists or not.

 

[serp777]

The explanation I gave was because the attributes given to Yahweh are impossible, to be immaterial and external to time is to not exist. The universe is the set of all things - to be external to the set of all things is to not exist.That was a proof. Unless you have evidence of any immaterial entity external to time? What does it mean to exist as a being - other than to occupy time and space in this universe? Until a theist somewhere proves a God exists, atheism is the default. Disbelief in an unevidenced claim (atheism) is not a claim. No matter how you spin it.

Would you clarify which god we are discussing please? If other than Yahweh.

The explanation I gave was because the attributes given to Yahweh are impossible, to be immaterial and external to time is to not exist.

No this proof is a complete failure. They are not impossible unless you have some proof showing that something could not have those attributes while being real; you're just assuming those attributes arent possible. The multiverse could be real and it has those attributes and yet you have not disproved the multiverse. Things dont just not exist because they have those attributes. It doesn't follow that because something is immaterial and external to time that it doesn't exist--a higher dimension for instance is outside of time and immaterial theoretically. That proof is defeated quite easily because it has unsound deductions.

The universe is the set of all things - to be external to the set of all things is to not exist.

Something cant be external to the set of all things, that makes no sense. You haven't shown how something with those attributes is not a thing. If it has attributes it is a thing.

What does it mean to exist as a being - other than to occupy time and space in this universe?

So because you can't fathom something existing outside time and space, therefore it cant exist? I can imagine a super advanced alien culture that exists in the fifth dimension and explores all possible universes with all possible timelines inside our laws of physics, or even all possible universes with all possible laws of physics with all possible timelines. That would be immaterial and outside of time and space. It could move between different universes--i prefer to define the universe as the set of all things that are locally avaliable to us.

Until a theist somewhere proves a God exists, atheism is the default.

Well since you've said before that atheism is agnosticism and vice versa then Ill accept that the default is simply that you don't know whether its true or false, which is what ive been trying to say from the beginning. The existence of God is not false by default. Thus the claim that God or Yahweh does not exist requires a burden of proof. I think you're close to accepting my argument.

 

[Bunyip]

We were talking about the burden of proof. I said the burden of proof rests on anyone who makes a factual claim which you then disagreed with.

Yes, the claim in question being that a God exists. The positive claim.

I never said ATHEISM had an inherent burden of proof in case you thought I was implying that. Atheism isnt the claim that God certainly does not exist. You said you didnt need to prove the claim that Yahweh doesnt exist combined and you said yahweh certainly doesnt exist; you do obviously do need to prove that negative claim or else all you can do is say you dont know the truth of this statement.

I gave proof for Yahweh.

This is how you were implying an argument from ignorance which is why i havent made any strawmen arguments here.

☆I quoted the strawman in question.

Finally the whole positive vs negative claim is irrelevant and you keep missing this point again and again and again. Here is the definition of burden of proof once again:

" the obligation to prove one's assertion."
Regardless of whether positive or negative assertions.

"When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true"

I don't know how much more clear I can make it. You're obsessed with the whole positive vs negative claim and somehow rejecting that a negative claim also requires evidence. You havent justified your position about negative claims not required proof at all. Any factual claim beiing asserted requires proof whatever it is. All you do is say "NO,NO, its the positive claim that has the burden of proof." But as you just agreed you would need evidence to support the negative claim that gravity doesn't exist or evolution is false. So sometimes a negative claim requires proof? At least be consistent or tell me about your custom theory of philosophical burden of proof. And if you're about to call strawman and make the fallacy fallacy here I will go back and cite where you have talked about positive claims only needing proof.



Name what parts i have ignored. I havent ignored one part of your argument. Ive addressed all of it easily. This kind of statement is wrothless when you fail to back it up with any examples; just white noise.

The claim atheism responds to is that a God exists - that is the claim.

 

[Bunyip]

No this proof is a complete failure. They are not impossible unless you have some proof showing that something could not have those attributes while being real; you're just assuming those attributes arent possible.

Yes, that is the default.

The multiverse could be real and it has those attributes and yet you have not disproved the multiverse.

Why would I need to?

Things dont just not exist because they have those attributes.

Sure they do - I could list an infinite number of such things, Smurfs, Zoobergers, etc. And not one single example of an immaterial, timeless entity.

It doesn't follow that because something is immaterial and external to time that it doesn't exist-

Of course it follows. Do you have a counter example?

-a higher dimension for instance is outside of time and immaterial theoretically. That proof is defeated quite easily because it has unsound deductions.

What is a 'higher dimension' exactly?

Something cant be external to the set of all things, that makes no sense.

Exactly! Bingo.

You haven't shown how something with those attributes is not a thing. If it has attributes it is a thing.

No , that's false. Triangles have attributes, but are not entities - they are abstracts.

So because you can't fathom something existing outside time and space, therefore it cant exist?

No, it is because existing outside of time and space is a logical impossiblility.

I can imagine a super advanced alien culture that exists in the fifth dimension and explores all possible universes with all possible timelines inside our laws of physics, or even all possible universes with all possible laws of physics with all possible timelines. That would be immaterial and outside of time and space. It could move between different universes--i prefer to define the universe as the set of all things that are locally avaliable to us.

Good for you, you have a wonderful imagination.

Well since you've said before that atheism is agnosticism and vice versa

No, I most certainly said no such thing.

then Ill accept that the default is simply that you don't know whether its true or false, which is what ive been trying to say from the beginning. The existence of God is not false by default.

Of course it is.That is what a 'default' is.

Thus the claim that God or Yahweh does not exist requires a burden of proof. I think you're close to accepting my argument.

 

[Bunyip]

Serp777

Would you clarify what God you are referring to if not Yahweh? I gave a proof for Yahweh.

I think perhaps you missed something on the burden of proof from wiki;

Holder of the burden

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. An argument from ignorance occurs when either a proposition is assumed to be true because it has not yet been proved false or a proposition is assumed to be false because it has not yet been proved true.[1][2] This has the effect of shifting the burden of proof to the person criticizing the proposition, but is not valid reasoning.[3]

Note the last five words - BUT IS NOT VALID REASONING

 

[Bunyip]

I didnt say atheism was a claim regarding fact.

Yes you did - post 274."We were talking about the burden of proof. I said the burden of proof rests on anyone who makes a factual claim".

As ive said repetedly atheism is the position that GOd probably doesnt exist because there is no supporting evidence. Therefore atheism doesnt have a burden of proof unless it makes the claim that God certainly doesnt exist.

And it could meet that burden simply by pointing to the absence of evidence to the contrary - the default.


Why do beliefs matter? THis is about claims in a debate. The claim that there is no God requires proof.

The claim is that God exists, not that he does not.

The existence of God is a fact so showing something to be true or false requires a burden of proof or else it is simply unknown. Unknown is the default scientific position. Science doesnt say that things are false until proven true. SO God isnt false until he is proven true. Its unknown whether God exists or not.

which God?

 

[Bunyip]

Serp777

This is one of the things you missed - Atheism is a response to a god claim, absent a god claim, atheism can not exist.
That is why the claim in question is that there is a God.

A positive claim.

A positive claim atheism rejects.