[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Burden of proof. (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 8/17/2011 7:22:49 AM EDT
|
One sticking point in debating theists on issues is where the burden of proof lies. Many skeptics will debate a believer or conspiracy theorist on issues ranging from the myth of Noah's ark to the that 9-11 was an inside job. After the believer asserts a story, they say to the skeptic something along the lines of "you can't prove it didn't happen."
Therein lies the rub. This debating sleight of hand is unfortunately seen well before it comes out. The person making the assertion attempts to move the burden of proof onto the skeptic. However, any smart skeptic will quickly call out the believer on this tactic. This is not valid any any way. The burden of proof is always and will always be on the one making the supernatural or extraordinary claim. As Carl Sagan said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." In short, the more outlandish and amazing the claim is, the more proof it requires to accept it as fact. (Notice I never use the word "faith.") In short, If I claim right now that I own a black lab named "Daisy" you're very likely to believe me. The claim (although untrue nonetheless) is not outlandish, its within the realm of possibility, you've seen a black lab before, the name "Daisy" is common. The claim is absolutely ordinary. It's still false, but it doesn't require much proof to believe. The reason there is little proof required on your part to believe is that the claim doesn't alter your life at all. It doesn't impact anyone. Although it is a lie and untrue (I own a complete mutt named "Buster") the claim is believable because it is so ordinary and boring. If I take it a step further. Let's say I come clean. I tell you, "No, my dog is actually a medium sized, 35 lb, part beagle part German short-haired pointer named 'Buster,' but the cool thing about Buster is that he can, from a sitting position, jump clear over an 8 foot fence." I've now upped the ante. Your skepticism is coming to the forefront. You see my dog, you see how small he is. But, you know from your experience in the world that its highly unlikely that a relatively small dog will be able to jump over an 8 foot fence. Before you believe this claim, you'll want to see proof. You'll demand I show you video, and even that may be altered in some way. You'd want to see it for yourself or speak to a witness. But, you know for certain that you have never seen a dog of any size, let alone one so small, jump over an 8 foot fence from any position, let alone sitting. You wouldn't believe me. Even though a dog with such ability is in the realm of the plausible, you still will remain skeptical. (And rightly so, because this claim is no longer ordinary, and requires evidence to believe.) Now, let's take this further. (The smart readers know where I'm going, so I'll just fast forward to my point.) If a claim of my dog jumping over a fence would require evidence from you to believe, why don't religious people require the same type of proof to supernatural claims in the Bible, Koran, etc. These claims are the most extraordinary claims possible. However, the believer, the same one skeptical about my claim about my dog being able to jump a fence, will believe them with very little or no evidence or proof. To come back to the "burden of proof" we must only rely on what we know and can demonstrate as proof. Passionate claims, scribblings of ancient mystics, these are not proof. The claims of the Koran are equal to the Claims of the Bible and are equal to the claims of the Book of Mormon. They are all equally flawed and unreliable and don't match the evidence found in the natural world. Evidence that we can see, touch, test and falsify if necessary. So, the burden of proof is on the believer. You're making the most extraordinary claims imaginable. Virgin Birth, a Young Earth, a worldwide flood, burning bushes, raising from the dead, God summoning Bears to maul young children making fun of a bald man and so on. I don't make these claims. I don't have to prove they didn't happen. The burden of proof is on you. Convince me! Good luck. |
|
the "burden of proof" goes both ways. also, "intelligent design" and the "big bang theory" are equally irrational.
edit: the skeptic is not intelligent if he or she thinks you can disprove the existence of God. Existence of God can be shown to be likely or unlikely depending on your assertions. Refer to Pascal's wager. If God does exist, and I choose to believe it, I go to heaven. If he does exist & I choose not to believe I go to hell. Consider God does not exist, nothing happens whether you believe or don't. Better safe than sorry so to speak. Your assertion that God does not exist cannot be proven. It cannot be evidenced either. However, an assertion that God does exist can be evidenced. It cannot be 100% proven against non-existence, but that is no reason to discount the possibility. edit2: Quoted:
why don't religious people require the same type of proof to supernatural claims in the Bible, Koran, etc. because it's a faith based religion. also, religion is typically entered through tradition (ie my parents were Christian, or Jewish, or whatever). this means many religious people may not have questioned their beliefs, but have just always assumed their credibility. that means they probably aren't equipped for a philosophical debate |
|
Forget the dog ….climb on over and take a look yourself!
Archaeology and the Bible more cool stuff More CRI ICR God and Science Stand to Reason |
|
It's about faith, not proof. That can be a blessing for believers, but it can also be quite a curse when trying to debate/discuss/explain outside of a common set of beliefs (even among believers of different faiths). For those who believe, no proof is necessary; for those who do not believe, no proof is sufficient. 
|
|
Quoted:
It's about faith, not proof. That can be a blessing for believers, but it can also be quite a curse when trying to debate/discuss/explain outside of a common set of beliefs (even among believers of different faiths). For those who believe, no proof is necessary; for those who do not believe, no proof is sufficient. I think it depends on what Religon you are part of. Obviously, you are Judeo-Christian, so that faith is cornerstone to what you believe. In contrast, in Buddhism, Blind Faith(or Faith in general) is something the Buddha said is not something the followers of his way should have; Everything must be questioned,. He felt that if you could not confirm with reason and Experience that what he(or anyone for that matter) is teaching, it must not be true. He also warned against getting attached to Dogma and Ritual, saying it could lead to delusion and block the path to enlightenment. Not saying one is better than the other as both have their own point of view. |
|
Quoted:
Forget the dog ….climb on over and take a look yourself! Archaeology and the Bible more cool stuff More CRI ICR God and Science Stand to Reason In one of your links up there, it is trying to reason the scientific principle of "the chemical nature of human life" by claiming that the scripture that supports that scientific priciple is God creating man from dust and breathing life into him. Is that a joke? |
|
If there was proof it wouldn't be a religion. It would be fact and would be taught in schools just like mathematics is.
There will never be proof enough to convince those of you who must see something unrefutable in order to believe. I'm not saying that in the sense that there is some proof but some of you need more. I'm saying that the lack of proof is part of God's plan. |
|
Quoted:
If there was proof it wouldn't be a religion. It would be fact and would be taught in schools just like mathematics is. There will never be proof enough to convince those of you who must see something unrefutable in order to believe. I'm not saying that in the sense that there is some proof but some of you need more. I'm saying that the lack of proof is part of God's plan. What drives me crazy is that people will believe in God, which I understand is 100% faith and I accept that, but then trash science and theories like the big bang and evolution for which there is a lot of actual, physical proof. They actually believe in something they can't see, over something they can physically see. Fascinating. The power of hope and religion I guess. 
|
|
Quoted:
If there was proof it wouldn't be a religion. It would be fact and would be taught in schools just like mathematics is. There will never be proof enough to convince those of you who must see something unrefutable in order to believe. I'm not saying that in the sense that there is some proof but some of you need more. I'm saying that the lack of proof is part of God's plan. I hear this a lot, but I do not understand it. Why would a perfect being require humans (which he supposedly gave intelligence to) require faith over evidence as a pathway to the truth. In what other instance in your life besides religion would you require faith to believe something over evidence ? Moreover, WHY would a god require faith over evidence ? Why would this prefect being require us to discard logic to believe in him ? It makes no sense. |
|
Quoted: For those who believe, no proof is necessary; for those who do not believe, no proof is sufficient. That'd be great, if Christianity were a non-proselytizing religion. Quoted: Quoted: If there was proof it wouldn't be a religion. It would be fact and would be taught in schools just like mathematics is. There will never be proof enough to convince those of you who must see something unrefutable in order to believe. I'm not saying that in the sense that there is some proof but some of you need more. I'm saying that the lack of proof is part of God's plan. I hear this a lot, but I do not understand it. Why would a perfect being require humans (which he supposedly gave intelligence to) require faith over evidence as a pathway to the truth. In what other instance in your life besides religion would you require faith to believe something over evidence ? Moreover, WHY would a god require faith over evidence ? Why would this prefect being require us to discard logic to believe in him ? It makes no sense. "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” - some smart dude... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If there was proof it wouldn't be a religion. It would be fact and would be taught in schools just like mathematics is. There will never be proof enough to convince those of you who must see something unrefutable in order to believe. I'm not saying that in the sense that there is some proof but some of you need more. I'm saying that the lack of proof is part of God's plan. I hear this a lot, but I do not understand it. Why would a perfect being require humans (which he supposedly gave intelligence to) require faith over evidence as a pathway to the truth. In what other instance in your life besides religion would you require faith to believe something over evidence ? Moreover, WHY would a god require faith over evidence ? Why would this prefect being require us to discard logic to believe in him ? It makes no sense. I haven't ever had to disregard logic to come to terms with my beliefs. Science does not, has not, and never will clash with the existence of God. The people who say that it does are interpreting things too stringently, IMO. If you've ever read the Bible there are plenty of examples of God testing people's faith when they had no physical proof of anything. Think about it, if you were God (Let's just assume you believe in God, if you don'), how easy would it be to have everyone believe? Very. God did not create us to be robots that believe something just because it IS. He created us with free will, gave us the knowledge and ability to spread the word, and left people to make their own decisions. |
|
Quoted: Of course science clashes with God. Here's the logical train:Quoted: Quoted: If there was proof it wouldn't be a religion. It would be fact and would be taught in schools just like mathematics is. There will never be proof enough to convince those of you who must see something unrefutable in order to believe. I'm not saying that in the sense that there is some proof but some of you need more. I'm saying that the lack of proof is part of God's plan. I hear this a lot, but I do not understand it. Why would a perfect being require humans (which he supposedly gave intelligence to) require faith over evidence as a pathway to the truth. In what other instance in your life besides religion would you require faith to believe something over evidence ? Moreover, WHY would a god require faith over evidence ? Why would this prefect being require us to discard logic to believe in him ? It makes no sense. I haven't ever had to disregard logic to come to terms with my beliefs. Science does not, has not, and never will clash with the existence of God. The people who say that it does are interpreting things too stringently, IMO. If you've ever read the Bible there are plenty of examples of God testing people's faith when they had no physical proof of anything. Think about it, if you were God (Let's just assume you believe in God, if you don'), how easy would it be to have everyone believe? Very. God did not create us to be robots that believe something just because it IS. He created us with free will, gave us the knowledge and ability to spread the word, and left people to make their own decisions. If you accept science and evolution >Then the story of Adam and Eve doesn't make sense >Then the events leading to the banishment from paradise couldn't have happened >Then there's no original sin >If there's no original sin, then Jesus did not need to die on the cross for your sins >If Jesus did not need to die for your sins, then Christianity falls apart. The only way to bypass this logic is to not accept evolution. Of which there is ample empirical evidence of its truthfulness; no faith is required. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If there was proof it wouldn't be a religion. It would be fact and would be taught in schools just like mathematics is. There will never be proof enough to convince those of you who must see something unrefutable in order to believe. I'm not saying that in the sense that there is some proof but some of you need more. I'm saying that the lack of proof is part of God's plan. What drives me crazy is that people will believe in God, which I understand is 100% faith and I accept that, but then trash science and theories like the big bang and evolution for which there is a lot of actual, physical proof. They actually believe in something they can't see, over something they can physically see. Fascinating. The power of hope and religion I guess. I don't trash science. If a scientist says that the universe began with a large explosion why shouldn't I believe that, or the better question would be why does that have to change my faith? On the other end of the spectrum, why does a scientist stating that the universe began with a big bang cause some to say "Welp, that clears it up, an explosion did it, not God". I believe that God created us intelligently and that he wants us to explore, learn, and create. We have learned a lot through studying nature and how the planet/universe developed that has helped us further our civilizations. IMO God wants us to learn (and invent new ways to learn) about this world he created. That pursuit of knowledge benefits us in many ways. Would we still seek that knowledge if we all knew without a shadow of a doubt that God did it or if He explained to us how it was all done? I don't think so...or at least to the extent we do. |
|
Quoted:
That'd be great, if Christianity were a non-proselytizing religion. Sure, if it wasn't it would be philosophy, not religion. "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” - some smart dude... Neither do I. Don't let your head explode. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Of course science clashes with God. Here's the logical train:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If there was proof it wouldn't be a religion. It would be fact and would be taught in schools just like mathematics is. There will never be proof enough to convince those of you who must see something unrefutable in order to believe. I'm not saying that in the sense that there is some proof but some of you need more. I'm saying that the lack of proof is part of God's plan. I hear this a lot, but I do not understand it. Why would a perfect being require humans (which he supposedly gave intelligence to) require faith over evidence as a pathway to the truth. In what other instance in your life besides religion would you require faith to believe something over evidence ? Moreover, WHY would a god require faith over evidence ? Why would this prefect being require us to discard logic to believe in him ? It makes no sense. I haven't ever had to disregard logic to come to terms with my beliefs. Science does not, has not, and never will clash with the existence of God. The people who say that it does are interpreting things too stringently, IMO. If you've ever read the Bible there are plenty of examples of God testing people's faith when they had no physical proof of anything. Think about it, if you were God (Let's just assume you believe in God, if you don'), how easy would it be to have everyone believe? Very. God did not create us to be robots that believe something just because it IS. He created us with free will, gave us the knowledge and ability to spread the word, and left people to make their own decisions. If you accept science and evolution >Then the story of Adam and Eve doesn't make sense >Then the events leading to the banishment from paradise couldn't have happened >Then there's no original sin >If there's no original sin, then Jesus did not need to die on the cross for your sins >If Jesus did not need to die for your sins, then Christianity falls apart. The only way to bypass this logic is to not accept evolution. Of which there is ample empirical evidence of its truthfulness; no faith is required. Well to be honest I don't really care if I morphed into this human form from a rock. I won't say the theory of evolution is wrong, specifically with humans, because I don't know....I haven't been here from the beginning. I know what I have read and I know that there is good evidence for it. I know that Darwin proved that it happened with animals over the course of a short number of years. So I guess you could say that in a sense I do believe in evolution. I also believe that many of the stories in the Old Testament are metaphorical and not meant to be a real account of what happened down to the letter, but were intended to explain God's will and desire in a concise, easy to understand manner. These things do not change anything for me. |
|
Quoted:
the "burden of proof" goes both ways. also, "intelligent design" and the "big bang theory" are equally irrational. edit: the skeptic is not intelligent if he or she thinks you can disprove the existence of God. Existence of God can be shown to be likely or unlikely depending on your assertions. Refer to Pascal's wager. If God does exist, and I choose to believe it, I go to heaven. If he does exist & I choose not to believe I go to hell. Consider God does not exist, nothing happens whether you believe or don't. Better safe than sorry so to speak. Your assertion that God does not exist cannot be proven. It cannot be evidenced either. However, an assertion that God does exist can be evidenced. It cannot be 100% proven against non-existence, but that is no reason to discount the possibility. edit2: Quoted:
why don't religious people require the same type of proof to supernatural claims in the Bible, Koran, etc. because it's a faith based religion. also, religion is typically entered through tradition (ie my parents were Christian, or Jewish, or whatever). this means many religious people may not have questioned their beliefs, but have just always assumed their credibility. that means they probably aren't equipped for a philosophical debate Are you actually trying to use Pascal's Wager as an argument for Christianity? 1. Pascal's Wager relies on doxastic voluntarism. If you want proof that it doesn't work, try to convince yourself that the sky is green one day. 2. It works on fear mongering. If you don't believe, you burn. Faith based on fear mongering and trying to convince yourself that you really believe just create false belief, which the Christian God hates. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
the "burden of proof" goes both ways. also, "intelligent design" and the "big bang theory" are equally irrational. edit: the skeptic is not intelligent if he or she thinks you can disprove the existence of God. Existence of God can be shown to be likely or unlikely depending on your assertions. Refer to Pascal's wager. If God does exist, and I choose to believe it, I go to heaven. If he does exist & I choose not to believe I go to hell. Consider God does not exist, nothing happens whether you believe or don't. Better safe than sorry so to speak. Your assertion that God does not exist cannot be proven. It cannot be evidenced either. However, an assertion that God does exist can be evidenced. It cannot be 100% proven against non-existence, but that is no reason to discount the possibility. edit2: Quoted:
why don't religious people require the same type of proof to supernatural claims in the Bible, Koran, etc. because it's a faith based religion. also, religion is typically entered through tradition (ie my parents were Christian, or Jewish, or whatever). this means many religious people may not have questioned their beliefs, but have just always assumed their credibility. that means they probably aren't equipped for a philosophical debate Are you actually trying to use Pascal's Wager as an argument for Christianity? 1. Pascal's Wager relies on doxastic voluntarism. If you want proof that it doesn't work, try to convince yourself that the sky is green one day. 2. It works on fear mongering. If you don't believe, you burn. Faith based on fear mongering and trying to convince yourself that you really believe just create false belief, which the Christian God hates. He was.... Theres a first for everything. |
|
Quoted:
I don't trash science. If a scientist says that the universe began with a large explosion why shouldn't I believe that, or the better question would be why does that have to change my faith? On the other end of the spectrum, why does a scientist stating that the universe began with a big bang cause some to say "Welp, that clears it up, an explosion did it, not God". I believe that God created us intelligently and that he wants us to explore, learn, and create. We have learned a lot through studying nature and how the planet/universe developed that has helped us further our civilizations. IMO God wants us to learn (and invent new ways to learn) about this world he created. That pursuit of knowledge benefits us in many ways. Would we still seek that knowledge if we all knew without a shadow of a doubt that God did it or if He explained to us how it was all done? I don't think so...or at least to the extent we do. I don't believe something because a scientist said it, I belive it because they have demostrated evidence for it. The big bang theory may be proven wrong sometime in the future, thats the great thing about the scientific method, it changes based on new evidence/facts. The bible does not. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If there was proof it wouldn't be a religion. It would be fact and would be taught in schools just like mathematics is. There will never be proof enough to convince those of you who must see something unrefutable in order to believe. I'm not saying that in the sense that there is some proof but some of you need more. I'm saying that the lack of proof is part of God's plan. What drives me crazy is that people will believe in God, which I understand is 100% faith and I accept that, but then trash science and theories like the big bang and evolution for which there is a lot of actual, physical proof. They actually believe in something they can't see, over something they can physically see. Fascinating. The power of hope and religion I guess. I don't trash science. If a scientist says that the universe began with a large explosion why shouldn't I believe that, or the better question would be why does that have to change my faith? On the other end of the spectrum, why does a scientist stating that the universe began with a big bang cause some to say "Welp, that clears it up, an explosion did it, not God". I believe that God created us intelligently and that he wants us to explore, learn, and create. We have learned a lot through studying nature and how the planet/universe developed that has helped us further our civilizations. IMO God wants us to learn (and invent new ways to learn) about this world he created. That pursuit of knowledge benefits us in many ways. Would we still seek that knowledge if we all knew without a shadow of a doubt that God did it or if He explained to us how it was all done? I don't think so...or at least to the extent we do. Because the evidence for the explosion is there, not evidence for God. A scientist would have to ask "What God did it?" Was it Zeus, Odin, Ra, Christian God, Islamic God, etc? God is not part of science because there is no proof, evidence, or trail that ever leads to some type of God, and believe me, if there was then God would be part of science...thats how science works. God rests safely in the realm of science where you can't actually prove something doesnt exist, if it in fact doesnt exist.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If there was proof it wouldn't be a religion. It would be fact and would be taught in schools just like mathematics is. There will never be proof enough to convince those of you who must see something unrefutable in order to believe. I'm not saying that in the sense that there is some proof but some of you need more. I'm saying that the lack of proof is part of God's plan. I hear this a lot, but I do not understand it. Why would a perfect being require humans (which he supposedly gave intelligence to) require faith over evidence as a pathway to the truth. In what other instance in your life besides religion would you require faith to believe something over evidence ? Moreover, WHY would a god require faith over evidence ? Why would this prefect being require us to discard logic to believe in him ? It makes no sense. Jesus never tells men that they must disregard any clearer understanding of nature or reject seeking proof of a Creator. Much of the foundation of Science has been built by Christian men seeking the answers to nature’s questions. However, the greater question isn’t how He created mankind. But that the Creator would die to give rebellious mankind new life. There is plenty of answers for the former but none other than Love for the latter. Nature proves God but faith places Him in our Hearts. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If there was proof it wouldn't be a religion. It would be fact and would be taught in schools just like mathematics is. There will never be proof enough to convince those of you who must see something unrefutable in order to believe. I'm not saying that in the sense that there is some proof but some of you need more. I'm saying that the lack of proof is part of God's plan. What drives me crazy is that people will believe in God, which I understand is 100% faith and I accept that, but then trash science and theories like the big bang and evolution for which there is a lot of actual, physical proof. They actually believe in something they can't see, over something they can physically see. Fascinating. The power of hope and religion I guess. I don't trash science. If a scientist says that the universe began with a large explosion why shouldn't I believe that, or the better question would be why does that have to change my faith? On the other end of the spectrum, why does a scientist stating that the universe began with a big bang cause some to say "Welp, that clears it up, an explosion did it, not God". I believe that God created us intelligently and that he wants us to explore, learn, and create. We have learned a lot through studying nature and how the planet/universe developed that has helped us further our civilizations. IMO God wants us to learn (and invent new ways to learn) about this world he created. That pursuit of knowledge benefits us in many ways. Would we still seek that knowledge if we all knew without a shadow of a doubt that God did it or if He explained to us how it was all done? I don't think so...or at least to the extent we do. Because the evidence for the explosion is there, not evidence for God. A scientist would have to ask "What God did it?" Was it Zeus, Odin, Ra, Christian God, Islamic God, etc? God is not part of science because there is no proof, evidence, or trail that ever leads to some type of God, and believe me, if there was then God would be part of science...thats how science works. God rests safely in the realm of science where you can't actually prove something doesnt exist, if it in fact doesnt exist. Clearly the God that did it would have to give the best answers. The problem isn’t the lack of answers….shoot, you and your wife created your very own toddling body of evidence. The problem we have is that the source for those answers holds men accountable for rejecting them. The problem that you are left with is that by rejecting The Creator.... you reject the source of creation. Without a Creator everything about science itself must than by definition originate from nothing….which defies science itself. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If there was proof it wouldn't be a religion. It would be fact and would be taught in schools just like mathematics is. There will never be proof enough to convince those of you who must see something unrefutable in order to believe. I'm not saying that in the sense that there is some proof but some of you need more. I'm saying that the lack of proof is part of God's plan. I hear this a lot, but I do not understand it. Why would a perfect being require humans (which he supposedly gave intelligence to) require faith over evidence as a pathway to the truth. In what other instance in your life besides religion would you require faith to believe something over evidence ? Moreover, WHY would a god require faith over evidence ? Why would this prefect being require us to discard logic to believe in him ? It makes no sense. Jesus never tells men that they must disregard any clearer understanding of nature or reject seeking proof of a Creator. Much of the foundation of Science has been built by Christian men seeking the answers to nature’s questions. However, the greater question isn’t how He created mankind. But that the Creator would die to give rebellious mankind new life.There is plenty of answers for the former but none other than Love for the latter. Nature proves God but faith places Him in our Hearts. Why would someone as powerful as a God even have to die for anything? He sacrificed himself to himself for something he created? That doesnt make any sense. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
the "burden of proof" goes both ways. also, "intelligent design" and the "big bang theory" are equally irrational. edit: the skeptic is not intelligent if he or she thinks you can disprove the existence of God. Existence of God can be shown to be likely or unlikely depending on your assertions. Refer to Pascal's wager. If God does exist, and I choose to believe it, I go to heaven. If he does exist & I choose not to believe I go to hell. Consider God does not exist, nothing happens whether you believe or don't. Better safe than sorry so to speak. Your assertion that God does not exist cannot be proven. It cannot be evidenced either. However, an assertion that God does exist can be evidenced. It cannot be 100% proven against non-existence, but that is no reason to discount the possibility. edit2: Quoted:
why don't religious people require the same type of proof to supernatural claims in the Bible, Koran, etc. because it's a faith based religion. also, religion is typically entered through tradition (ie my parents were Christian, or Jewish, or whatever). this means many religious people may not have questioned their beliefs, but have just always assumed their credibility. that means they probably aren't equipped for a philosophical debate Are you actually trying to use Pascal's Wager as an argument for Christianity? 1. Pascal's Wager relies on doxastic voluntarism. If you want proof that it doesn't work, try to convince yourself that the sky is green one day. 2. It works on fear mongering. If you don't believe, you burn. Faith based on fear mongering and trying to convince yourself that you really believe just create false belief, which the Christian God hates. Fear mongering is what the democrats call consequences & personal responsibility. Since you've avoided the true debate, along with your apparent ignorance, I assume you voted for Obama. Pascal's wager is often used as an argument for the existence of God. That has nothing to do with Christianity. I alluded to the Bible to aide reading comprehension, but I could have just as well given examples from Islam or other deist religions. Do you have something against the term "free will", or we're you hoping to distract us further from the true debate by stating the obvious? (i'm referring to your point #1) Quoted:
He was.... Theres a first for everything. way to demonstrate you haven't got a clue what we're discussing. allow me to educate you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager attention to 3rd paragraph...... just in case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph |
|
Quoted:
Clearly the God that did it would have to give the best answers. The problem isn’t the lack of answers….shoot, you and your wife created your very own toddling body of evidence. The problem we have is that the source for those answers holds men accountable for rejecting them. The problem that you are left with is that by rejecting The Creator.... you reject the source of creation. Without a Creator everything about science itself must than by definition originate from nothing….which defies science itself. What if we're both wrong and the actual/true creator was Zeus? That means you're rejecting the creator, too. |
|
Quoted:
If you accept science and evolution >Then the story of Adam and Eve doesn't make sense >Then the events leading to the banishment from paradise couldn't have happened >Then there's no original sin >If there's no original sin, then Jesus did not need to die on the cross for your sins >If Jesus did not need to die for your sins, then Christianity falls apart. The only way to bypass this logic is to not accept evolution. Of which there is ample empirical evidence of its truthfulness; no faith is required. not true if you accept science and evolution, you can still (through faith) believe God set this in motion as opposed to it being a happy accident which most "scientists" so eloquently refer to as the "big bang" theory. it's a theory because there's no empirical evidence this theory is possible. so basically the scientist & the Christian both rely on faith. If you're more comfortable having faith in a theory created by science in recent history, that's fine, but you have no leg to stand on when critiquing a religious person's belief system that's based on recorded history, rather than a theory. their "recorded history" might be embellished or inaccurate, but that makes it no less valid than a theory which can't be proven. |
|
Genesis believes that the human race started with 2 common ancestors: Adam and Eve. Evolution believes humans evolved from a older hominid species, of which there may be conceivable many "common ancestors." I believe these two claims are mutually exclusive. If you accept evolution, you cannot accept Adam/Eve. Again, without Adam/Eve, the rest of the logic train follows As for putting stock in evolution or the big bang theory- it is because I choose to have confidence (not faith) in a theory with empirical data. Furthermore, the big bang theory and evolution are positive assertions, which can conform with standards for testing and modification based on evidence. With religion, you cannot make a positive assertion because of the lack of empirical evidence; therefore, religion tends to argue via negative assertions, or, "you can't prove my God doesn't exist." Negative assertions are not valid for testing, and that is the reason I choose to place stock in modern science rather than religion. Furthermore, if you try to apply divinity in order to place a competing theory against scientific theories such as evolution or the big bang theory, there is a COMPLETE lack of empirical evidence or testability; in order to assert a divine explanation for natural phenomena, you have to once again rely on a negative assertion which again, is a logical fallacy. Going back to the OP, science is capable of shouldering the burden of proof, religion is not. This is why religion requires faith, while science does not. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you accept science and evolution >Then the story of Adam and Eve doesn't make sense >Then the events leading to the banishment from paradise couldn't have happened >Then there's no original sin >If there's no original sin, then Jesus did not need to die on the cross for your sins >If Jesus did not need to die for your sins, then Christianity falls apart. The only way to bypass this logic is to not accept evolution. Of which there is ample empirical evidence of its truthfulness; no faith is required. not true if you accept science and evolution, you can still (through faith) believe God set this in motion as opposed to it being a happy accident which most "scientists" so eloquently refer to as the "big bang" theory. it's a theory because there's no empirical evidence this theory is possible. so basically the scientist & the Christian both rely on faith. If you're more comfortable having faith in a theory created by science in recent history, that's fine, but you have no leg to stand on when critiquing a religious person's belief system that's based on recorded history, rather than a theory. their "recorded history" might be embellished or inaccurate, but that makes it no less valid than a theory which can't be proven. You dont understand what it takes to become a scientific theory. Scientific theories are founded in observations and factual evidence. Evolution and the big bang are theories because there is actually real evidence that supports the way that we think they happend. I'm with Nighthawk in my belief that there is no way you can say that God set science in motion, and then read and believe Genesis...no way. |
|
let me just say that the 2 posts above this one are very well written. I still, however, find it hard to grasp that it was a spontaneous explosion from which our universe evolved. evolution is a documented phenomenon. that is clear. what i don't understand is the lack of inter-evolutionary fossils in the fossil record. why is it that we can't find an overwhelming abundance of 1/2 man, 1/2 ape skeletal remains which document the loss of our tail & other changes? most scientists respond by saying "we just haven't found em yet", be that as it may, it does make one wonder. this lack of inter-species evidence in the fossil record, coupled with science's best guess of "it just happened" regarding the big bang, is all the evidence I need to rule that atheists have made an unwise choice of belief systems. i can understand the agnostic, but the atheist just seems self-important to me
|
|
Quoted: let me just say that the 2 posts above this one are very well written. I still, however, find it hard to grasp that it was a spontaneous explosion from which our universe evolved. evolution is a documented phenomenon. that is clear. what i don't understand is the lack of inter-evolutionary fossils in the fossil record. why is it that we can't find an overwhelming abundance of 1/2 man, 1/2 ape skeletal remains which document the loss of our tail & other changes? most scientists respond by saying "we just haven't found em yet", be that as it may, it does make one wonder. this lack of inter-species evidence in the fossil record, coupled with science's best guess of "it just happened" regarding the big bang, is all the evidence I need to rule that atheists have made an unwise choice of belief systems. i can understand the agnostic, but the atheist just seems self-important to me There are in fact quite a number of transitional fossils- everything from Australopithecus to Homo Habilis, Erectus, Neanderthalis, etc where we can map the gradual shifts in species that ultimately resulted in Sapiens. The problem with the "lack of transitional fossils" counterargument is that every time we find a transitional fossil (such as the ones listed), the nay sayers ask for a transitional fossil that falls between the transitional fossils. Suffice to say, there comes a point where the resolution of archaeology falls short; the fossil record will always be incomplete because of there is no guarantee of fossilization. In fact, fossilization has a VERY low probability of occurring if you consider that the right weather patterns must be present, the right sediments must be present, the lack of geological disturbances must be present, and that the calcification of the bones occur in just the right manner to preserve the corpse. Given all this, I find it remarkable that we've found as many transitional fossils as we have. (Also, we haven't lost the tail; you still have the coccyx- in this case, a transitional fossil is not required, just fall on your butt hard  )If anything, I feel that the fossil evidence for supporting evolution is perhaps one of the weakest. I like genetic evidence myself. Consider this: primates such as chimps or gorillas have 24 pairs of chromosomes, while we have 23. So what happened to the 24th pair when humans evolved from the common ancestor of humans and primitive primates? If evolution theory is correct, then it predicts that during evolution, the 24th chromosome fused with another chromosome. This is in fact true; if we look at human (Homo Sapien Sapien) chromosome #2, we notice that it has 2 centromere locations instead of 1, and 3 telomere segments instead of 2; all evidence pointing to the fact that our "missing" 24th chromosome fused with chromosome #2 at some point in evolution history. Also take a look at the mammalian immunological system; this is again a beautiful example of evolution. Simplistic, yet elegant. Looking at host/pathogen interactions clearly indicates the presence of a almost cold-war esque arms race between the immunological defense system and the pathogenic offensive system. This is a very clear demonstration on the principles of natural selection, and therefore evolution. Also, forget transitional fossils; what if I can show you a transitional cell that still exists in your body today? There is an immunological cell known as the Natural Killer T Cell, that has the characteristics of both an ancient "innate" immune system, and an evolutionarily modern "adaptive" immune system. By looking at this NK T Cell, immunologists can examine the evolutionary lineage that caused our immune system to develop the way it did; its really cool actually, but I'll refrain from geeking out. Examined in totality, the evidence of evolution from genetic, to immunological (and other physiological), to paleontological, to anthropological, and to geological speak for themselves. As for the Big Bang, if you wish, I'll try to give my best explanation for the evidence and logic behind it. It's fairly compelling in its own right as well. However, I am a biologist by training and not a physicist, so I would be wandering outside my comfort zone. ETA: I don't think I'm atheist because I'm self-important. I'm atheist because that's how I interpret the world- I see the universe obeying a set of natural laws and phenomena that does not require divine intervention. In fact, I view religion as the product of human self importance; I believe that man made God in our image, not the other way around. Consider religion from a historical/anthropological perspective, and you too will see why religion took hold in society the way it did: "God" was able to do everything from explaining why the Sun rises and stars move, to giving solace to people living through the utterly bleak period of the Dark and Middle Ages. God was also an effective mechanism for the ruling class to instill obedience in their subjects. All said, I see the hand of man molding God and religion rather than the hand of God molding humans. What's more likely in this case- that humans devised God and Religion to serve our needs? Or that an omnipotent/omniscient being created us ... for God knows what reason... (pun fully intended) |
|
"Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world....the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same. Consider the enormousness of the problem : Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks: 'What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter or energy into the universe?' And science cannot answer these questions.
"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." "There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions [of scientists to evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning]. They come from the heart whereas you would expect the judgments to come from the brain. Why? I think part of the answer is that scientists cannot bear the thought of a natural phenomenon which cannot be explained, even with unlimited time and money. There is a kind of religion in science, it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the universe, and every effect must have its cause, [but still believes that] there is no first cause... "This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. -Robert Jastrow" |
|
"It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious. . . . I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.-Arthur Leonard Schawlow"
"I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing.-Alan Sandage" |
|
Quoted:
Fear mongering is what the democrats call consequences & personal responsibility. Since you've avoided the true debate, along with your apparent ignorance, I assume you voted for Obama. Pascal's wager is often used as an argument for the existence of God. That has nothing to do with Christianity. I alluded to the Bible to aide reading comprehension, but I could have just as well given examples from Islam or other deist religions. Do you have something against the term "free will", or we're you hoping to distract us further from the true debate by stating the obvious? (i'm referring to your point #1) And my points can just as easily apply to Islam or other theistic religions. Pascal's Wager just doesn't work. Now, before you try to argue for doxastic voluntarism by saying that we have free will, did you try to convince yourself that the sky is green, or that Druidism is the belief system for you? Free will is absolutely different than being able to change your beliefs on a moment's notice. Because we're making assumptions, I can't resist making this comment. So, because you have a shallow understanding of what we're talking about, and are a religious fanatic, you must support Rick Perry and lies about creating good jobs. Quoted:
if you accept science and evolution, you can still (through faith) believe God set this in motion as opposed to it being a happy accident which most "scientists" so eloquently refer to as the "big bang" theory. it's a theory because there's no empirical evidence this theory is possible. so basically the scientist & the Christian both rely on faith. If you're more comfortable having faith in a theory created by science in recent history, that's fine, but you have no leg to stand on when critiquing a religious person's belief system that's based on recorded history, rather than a theory. their "recorded history" might be embellished or inaccurate, but that makes it no less valid than a theory which can't be proven. the·o·ry noun, plural the·o·ries. 1. a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine. NightHawk did a damn good job of outlining some of the evidence for evolution. |
|
Quoted:
way to demonstrate you haven't got a clue what we're discussing. allow me to educate you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager attention to 3rd paragraph...... just in case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph Pascals wager was, is, & always will be a fools bet. What do you plan to use next ? Argument from authority ? |
|
Quoted:
not true if you accept science and evolution, you can still (through faith) believe God set this in motion as opposed to it being a happy accident which most "scientists" so eloquently refer to as the "big bang" theory. it's a theory because there's no empirical evidence this theory is possible. so basically the scientist & the Christian both rely on faith. If you're more comfortable having faith in a theory created by science in recent history, that's fine, but you have no leg to stand on when critiquing a religious person's belief system that's based on recorded history, rather than a theory. their "recorded history" might be embellished or inaccurate, but that makes it no less valid than a theory which can't be proven. You do realize that a "theory" is not just a guess right ? It is based on observable evidence that can be re-created. It is called a theory, because it can not be proven to 100% Gravity is just a theory, but I believe it exists because I have seen what happens when I throw a ball into the air. The theory seems to explain with great certainty why it then falls back to the earth. If you are relying on the bible for "recorded history" that is the first mistake you made. |
|
Quoted:
ETA: I don't think I'm atheist because I'm self-important. I'm atheist because that's how I interpret the world- I see the universe obeying a set of natural laws and phenomena that does not require divine intervention. In fact, I view religion as the product of human self importance; I believe that man made God in our image, not the other way around. Consider religion from a historical/anthropological perspective, and you too will see why religion took hold in society the way it did: "God" was able to do everything from explaining why the Sun rises and stars move, to giving solace to people living through the utterly bleak period of the Dark and Middle Ages. God was also an effective mechanism for the ruling class to instill obedience in their subjects. All said, I see the hand of man molding God and religion rather than the hand of God molding humans. What's more likely in this case- that humans devised God and Religion to serve our needs? Or that an omnipotent/omniscient being created us ... for God knows what reason... (pun fully intended) Best explanation I have seen yet. |
|
Quoted: great info from nighthawk If it's possible for me to explain the logic of evolution to even one person, and have them appreciate it, then I've done my job as a biologist. Curious- have I convinced you on the accuracy of evolution? And if yes, do you see why it presents a logical conundrum against Judea-Christian religions? (If no, what further doubts can I explain or beat out of you? ) |
|
I do believe in creationism but even with the big bang theory there has to be a big banger. There is no extrinsic evidence to support creationism; at best, it makes assertions based either from a negative assertion, or an argument from authority: Belief in creationism requires one to believe that the bible was divinely inspired. Belief in divine inspiration requires one to believe in a God who created us. The logic is circuitous and fails. Again, this is in stark contrast to evolution which can draw on multiple fields of disciple with a multitude of lines of evidence to support the theory. [Also, WTF are these gaps in biological evolutionary knowledge that people keep referring to?  ]As for the Big Bang, cosmological evidence suggests our current model of the origins of the Universe is entirely possible; again, the big bang theory is a positive assertion that is falsifiable, and testable. The only quirk with the Big Bang Theory is that we lose resolution when T < 15sec; this is a period of time from the big bang to 15 seconds post that physicists refer to as opaqueness. Pondering what happened during those 15 seconds, and perhaps more importantly, what preceded the Big Bang is currently more a matter of philosophy than science; we simply don't know, and have very little means of making an accurate hypothesis. HOWEVER, people like myself strongly refrain from suggesting that because we don't know, there must be a God. Throughout the existence of our species, every-time we can't explain a phenomena, we tend to insert God.
Now, all said: is it possible that some sort of prime mover started the Big Bang? Possible... But if so, this prime mover would be much more on the order of a deistic god, than any God known to human theology. |
|
Now, all said: is it possible that some sort of prime mover started the Big Bang? Possible... But if so, this prime mover would be much more on the order of a deistic god, than any God known to human theology.
That last part.....on the attributes of such a hypothetical god, which amazingly you acknowledge the possibility of....... With what degree of confidence can you make such claim? |
|
this is my first foray into this forum, but i think that this is an interesting question that was crosslinked from a GD thread. some thoughts: Quoted: The burden of proof is always and will always be on the one making the supernatural or extraordinary claim. this is not entirely the case. by rhetorical convention, the burden of 'proof' is upon the person who submits a categorical statement (all S are P, no S are P, some S are P, some S are not P) for consideration. a small distinction, but significant, i think. Quoted: Of course science clashes with God. Here's the logical train: If you accept science and evolution >Then the story of Adam and Eve doesn't make sense >Then the events leading to the banishment from paradise couldn't have happened >Then there's no original sin >If there's no original sin, then Jesus did not need to die on the cross for your sins >If Jesus did not need to die for your sins, then Christianity falls apart. The only way to bypass this logic is to not accept evolution. Of which there is ample empirical evidence of its truthfulness; no faith is required. this is not the case. the existence or nonexistence of god is not the same as the truth or untruth of the literal interpretation of the genesis account (special creation). and the validity of christianity is not determined by the status of the special creation interpretation. the genesis account might have been schematic or allegorical––designed to communicate ideas to people who did not understand contemporary physics and anthropology. or the genesis account might be completely incorrect, and some other cosmogony (norse, hindu) might be the correct one. in any of these cases, science does not clash with god himself (or itself), but rather with finite human understanding. Quoted: Quoted: it's a theory because there's no empirical evidence this theory is possible. You don't understand what it takes to become a scientific theory. Scientific theories are founded in observations and factual evidence. this, however, is completely true. "just a theory" should be banished from the conversation, IMO. Quoted: Because the evidence for the explosion is there remember, all data are theory-laden. there is no such thing as 'objective' data, because the very concept of data depends entirely upon presuppositions like the uniformity of nature and the 'no miracles' argument––ideas that we can't prove in any kind of logical way. |
|
Quoted: Now, all said: is it possible that some sort of prime mover started the Big Bang? Possible... But if so, this prime mover would be much more on the order of a deistic god, than any God known to human theology. That last part.....on the attributes of such a hypothetical god, which amazingly you acknowledge the possibility of....... With what degree of confidence can you make such claim? I make this as a negative assertion, as all supernatural claims are. Therefore, I have no statistical degree of confidence. A deistic prime mover is as likely as the flying spaghetti monster in this case. If that is the only part of my explanation you latched onto though, I think you're missing the entire point of my the previous assertion. |
|
Quoted:
Genesis believes that the human race started with 2 common ancestors: Adam and Eve. Evolution believes humans evolved from a older hominid species, of which there may be conceivable many "common ancestors." I believe these two claims are mutually exclusive. If you accept evolution, you cannot accept Adam/Eve. Again, without Adam/Eve, the rest of the logic train follows As for putting stock in evolution or the big bang theory- it is because I choose to have confidence (not faith) in a theory with empirical data. Furthermore, the big bang theory and evolution are positive assertions, which can conform with standards for testing and modification based on evidence. With religion, you cannot make a positive assertion because of the lack of empirical evidence; therefore, religion tends to argue via negative assertions, or, "you can't prove my God doesn't exist." Negative assertions are not valid for testing, and that is the reason I choose to place stock in modern science rather than religion. Furthermore, if you try to apply divinity in order to place a competing theory against scientific theories such as evolution or the big bang theory, there is a COMPLETE lack of empirical evidence or testability; in order to assert a divine explanation for natural phenomena, you have to once again rely on a negative assertion which again, is a logical fallacy. Going back to the OP, science is capable of shouldering the burden of proof, religion is not. This is why religion requires faith, while science does not. So would you define the science behind Al Gore and friends global warming stance as factual data or religion? What of the science behind The Nazi final solution? Turn of the century American eugenics? |
|
Quoted: There is a critical flaw in all of your examples: all of these cases of science have political motivation behind them, which has an uncanny habit of skewing results or the interpretation thereof. In which case science once tainted by politics becomes dogmatic, much like religion. On the other hand, Evolution has no political affiliation or motivation: Republicans accept it, Democrats accept it, Communists accept it. Even a large portion of the Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Buddhist/etc population accept it.Quoted: Genesis believes that the human race started with 2 common ancestors: Adam and Eve. Evolution believes humans evolved from a older hominid species, of which there may be conceivable many "common ancestors." I believe these two claims are mutually exclusive. If you accept evolution, you cannot accept Adam/Eve. Again, without Adam/Eve, the rest of the logic train follows As for putting stock in evolution or the big bang theory- it is because I choose to have confidence (not faith) in a theory with empirical data. Furthermore, the big bang theory and evolution are positive assertions, which can conform with standards for testing and modification based on evidence. With religion, you cannot make a positive assertion because of the lack of empirical evidence; therefore, religion tends to argue via negative assertions, or, "you can't prove my God doesn't exist." Negative assertions are not valid for testing, and that is the reason I choose to place stock in modern science rather than religion. Furthermore, if you try to apply divinity in order to place a competing theory against scientific theories such as evolution or the big bang theory, there is a COMPLETE lack of empirical evidence or testability; in order to assert a divine explanation for natural phenomena, you have to once again rely on a negative assertion which again, is a logical fallacy. Going back to the OP, science is capable of shouldering the burden of proof, religion is not. This is why religion requires faith, while science does not. So would you define the science behind Al Gore and friends global warming stance as factual data or religion? What of the science behind The Nazi final solution? Turn of the century American eugenics? If you have an inherent distrust of science, then there is no further reason to debate this with you... (and by the by, I do believe the evidence points to AGW; however, I don't want to get into that as it would completely derail this topic) |