the default claim for God's existence...

[gw120]

You are innocent until proven guilty applies here. If something can't be proven to exist than it logically does not exist. I.E. I say that Joey from Friends was actually based on a flying spaghetti monster from Uranus, you can't disprove so are you going to believe it?

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric What a strange assertion? Claims do not exist in a vacuum. We really can and do rely heavily on existing knowledge. ... Point being we do not erase massive amounts of knowledge to consider each claim.

To the contrary, claims should be examined individually, especially when dealing with such inherently theoretical or un-immediate questions like the potential existence of God. Simply because it is easier or more pragmatic to assume things to default either true or false in daily life does not indicate it should be so for philosophical inquiry or debate. We can't go through our daily lives continually questioning whether that toaster will really give us toast after we invest our still good bread in it. It wouldn't be practical to weigh evidence everyday as to whether something has changed to necessitate our not using the toaster. However, this practicality does not apply to philosophy or debate, where definitions are extremely important, and where certain claims or facts can apply where they otherwise might not, and logic is king. We cannot assume claims to default true or false through previous knowledge: that previous knowledge is instead used as supporting evidence or proof for that particular stance, not as justification for a default position.

Quote by: Zhavric Okay. Let's examine the counter evidence theists have at their disposal which supports god: ... There is no valid evidence supporting god's existence. God contradicts too much of what we already know to be true to be "unknown". God defaults to false.

I did not propose that there was any "valid evidence" to support God's existence. This lack of opposing evidence does not, however, lead the God hypothesis to default false. It simply means that in a debate the theists won't have very many valid things to say, and you can declare yourself winner for all the good it will do you. This apparently (to you, as I disagree) overwhelming advantage of evidence in favor of atheists may help them in debates, but what it does not do is default the claim over God's existence to be false. You have the burden of proof in negating his existence as much as we have that burden to affirm it, and if neither of us wishes or is capable of proving it so, the God claim remains unknown, not false.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: gw120 You are innocent until proven guilty applies here. If something can't be proven to exist than it logically does not exist.

Might I ask why? You're definitely assuming this logic without explaining its basis. Why does something default to nonexistence before its proof of existence?

Additionally, it's interesting that you automatically attribute "innocent" in "innocent until proven guilty" to "non-existing", while "guilty" is equated to "existing". These attributions appear to be arbitrary, and chosen simply to fit your viewpoint. I could just as easily make the opposite comparison.

Quote by: gw120 I.E. I say that Joey from Friends was actually based on a flying spaghetti monster from Uranus, you can't disprove so are you going to believe it?

I suppose I would if I found the claim and any evidence behind it convincing enough. I obviously don't though, so no. That doesn't mean the Joey-based-on-alien-spaghetti claim defaults false, it just means it didn't win me over.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 That's a great summation of the agnostic stance. Too bad it will be buried in claims that a "creator of the universe" contradicts certain claims, after attempts to redefine it. The extremist atheistic stance is formulaic, and demonstrably illogical. You should just ignore any posts operating on a different meaning for "god" - they obviously don't want to debate the same subject.

Quote by: Zhavric Oh, important note: there is a pack of fundamentalist agnostics who will stop at nothing to keep god labeled as "possible". To them, god's only definably attribute is his complete mutability to avoid any message board argument. Don't let them drive this off-topic with their foolish evasions.

See what I mean?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fangrim To the contrary, claims should be examined individually,

Okay. Define each and every word in the above sentence. Then please give definition for each word you use in the first round of definitions. Once you've done that, prove that each and every concept & claim involved in those definitions is true.

Start with "examined", please.

You see the futility of this?

Claims do not exist in a vacuum. They rely on existing knowledge.

We cannot assume claims to default true or false through previous knowledge: that previous knowledge is instead used as supporting evidence or proof for that particular stance, not as justification for a default position.

Okay. Let's follow what you stated and apply it to itself. The above quoted statements are therefor neither true nor false, but unknown until you prove them true.

Does that sound right to you?

I did not propose that there was any "valid evidence" to support God's existence. This lack of opposing evidence does not, however, lead the God hypothesis to default false.

Of course it doesn't. The considerable ridiculousness involved in claiming god is real is what makes the god hypothesis default to false.

It simply means that in a debate the theists won't have very many valid things to say, and you can declare yourself winner for all the good it will do you. This apparently (to you, as I disagree) overwhelming advantage of evidence in favor of atheists may help them in debates, but what it does not do is default the claim over God's existence to be false.

Of course it does.

You seem to be under some bizarre misconception that a different set of rules for claims exist for god. My argument relies on no such special pleadings. Claims which contradict existing proven claims are false. It's that simple... whether it's a question of volconvo.com post counts or god's (non) existence.

You have the burden of proof in negating his existence as much as we have that burden to affirm it,

Really?

So, if I claimed "The Wright Brothers used a Boeing 747 as their model for the first powered glider in 1903" you'd be under the same burden to proof in negating the existence of a B747?

What a strange way to debate...

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Zhavric See what I mean?

That's why I posted. So he could see what you mean to say, and then rightly dismiss it, for the reasons I provided. I don't think citing my post as further clarification of your logical shortcomings was required - and a bit redundant.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 That's why I posted. So he could see what you mean to say, and then rightly dismiss it, for the reasons I provided. I don't think citing my post as further clarification of your logical shortcomings was required - and a bit redundant.

Please contribute to the debate or don't post.

[Jack]

I did not propose that there was any "valid evidence" to support God's existence. This lack of opposing evidence does not, however, lead the God hypothesis to default false. It simply means that in a debate the theists won't have very many valid things to say

Let's not be too gentle, the theists will have nothing at all valid to offer. Which is why the god hypothesis is invalid; there's not a shred of credible evidence to support the contention.

[Kamehameha34]

Of course it doesn't. The considerable ridiculousness involved in claiming god is real is what makes the god hypothesis default to false.

Eegads! You're right! Why didn't you just call it ridiculous from the start?!
Then we could have avoided this whole "evidence" technicality, altogether!

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Zhavric See what I mean?

Quote by: Zhavric Please contribute to the debate or don't post.

See what I mean?

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric Okay. Define each and every word in the above sentence. Then please give definition for each word you use in the first round of definitions. Once you've done that, prove that each and every concept & claim involved in those definitions is true. Start with "examined", please. You see the futility of this? Claims do not exist in a vacuum. They rely on existing knowledge.

Okay. Let's follow what you stated and apply it to itself. The above quoted statements are therefor neither true nor false, but unknown until you prove them true. Does that sound right to you?

If we're going to be cute and use the debate context for the debate itself again, I might as well not bother trying. Zhavric, I obviously allowed for skipping over such trivialties in defining the meaning of every single word that we use when I talked about its nonpracticality, as in debating whether a toaster will really create toast this morning. In day to day life, we tend to ignore the need for evidence or methodical examination of any new contexts.

In a debate, however, in which we examine claims and provide evidence to back these claims up or to bring them down, we cannot assume that a claim defaults as false or true, because all evidence that would be used to justify just a default claim should simply be used as evidence for proving it so, not defaulting it. In fact, your very justification for a default claim in your first response that used scientific knowledge was evidence that should be used to prove the God claim false.

Claims do exist in a vacuum when we look at them seperate from the context of supporting evidence. When we apply this evidence, we begin creating a proof for a claim. A claim does not carry the baggage of supporting evidence behind it that causes it to default true or false. We must apply this evidence through debate.
A good reason for this besides it simply being logical is that it prevents people who actually are not able to prove a claim false from hiding behind a defaulted one. Clearly, most evidence that is used to prove a claim to default false can be equally used to prove it false via actual debate. Denying the ability to default claims prevents people from not knowing the evidence to ignorantly use that evidence in a prima facie default.



We cannot logically assume a claim to default as false or true because doing so requires logical premises and evidence that might as well be used to prove a claim false or true in the actual debate, not as a prima facie assertion. No claim defaults to true or false, including the God claim.

Of course it doesn't. The considerable ridiculousness involved in claiming god is real is what makes the god hypothesis default to false.

The entire point is that "considerable ridiculousness" is only brought to light through presenting it as evidence. No claim defaults a certain way; they are instead proven through that evidence.

You seem to be under some bizarre misconception that a different set of rules for claims exist for god. My argument relies on no such special pleadings. Claims which contradict existing proven claims are false. It's that simple... whether it's a question of volconvo.com post counts or god's (non) existence.

Actually, no. I would apply the same rules to any such claim. The difference here that perhaps you are missing is that the God claim is so much more theoretical and less practical in nature that it more easily sees no reason to default a certain way because of convenience, quite opposite that of having to define every word as we use it, which would be additionally complicated by the fact that we would need to define the words we are using to define the originals, but would need to define those words before those, and...you see, I can understand practical applications of default claims (even though they are somewhat different in this case since I'm simply using words that have accepted meanings by those who use our language, and am not claiming a definition with which you are unfamiliar to be the true definition), but the God claim is not practical in the sense of needing it to communicate or live day to day.

So, if I claimed "The Wright Brothers used a Boeing 747 as their model for the first powered glider in 1903" you'd be under the same burden to proof in negating the existence of a B747? What a strange way to debate...

Just to make sure we're on the same page, you mean that you are asking whether I would have the same burden of proof in negating the claim, not just the existence of B747s.
Yes, I do. The point is that I would have to have evidence to prove my negative claim, just like you would need evidence to prove yours. Obviously, you're going to lose, and rather quickly (unless I am just incapable of bringing in any evidence...), but that doesn't mean the claim defaults as false.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fangrim If we're going to be cute and use the debate context for the debate itself again, I might as well not bother trying.

That's an interesting way to describe me pointing out the very obvious flaw in your reasoning. "Cute". I'll have to remember that.

Zhavric, I obviously allowed for skipping over such trivialties in defining the meaning of every single word that we use when I talked about its nonpracticality, as in debating whether a toaster will really create toast this morning. In day to day life, we tend to ignore the need for evidence or methodical examination of any new contexts.

What are you talking about? We don't ignore the need for evidence in the slightest. We have the evidence so we take it for granted. That does not mean we ignore it. It's been proven to us toasters make toast.

We must always take into account existing claims. It would be retarded to say "Well, it's unknown if this machine called 'toaster' was designed to make toast." You'd point out that of course it makes toast because you've SEEN it make toast so many times... yet you are demanding we suspend our common sense knowledge in certain scenarios. This is known as a special pleading and is a kind of logical fallacy.

In a debate, however, in which we examine claims and provide evidence to back these claims up or to bring them down, we cannot assume that a claim defaults as false or true, because all evidence that would be used to justify just a default claim should simply be used as evidence for proving it so, not defaulting it.

Okay. Then by your own logic the toaster becomes an unknown. You seem to be under some ridiculous misconception that we must discard knowledge as soon as someone says "dbeate". How silly?

In fact, your very justification for a default claim in your first response that used scientific knowledge was evidence that should be used to prove the God claim false.

God is false. No one has offered anything to contradict the default position of false.

We cannot logically assume a claim to default as false or true because doing so requires logical premises and evidence that might as well be used to prove a claim false or true in the actual debate, not as a prima facie assertion. No claim defaults to true or false, including the God claim.

What a silly idea?

"The individual with the screen name Fangrim has never posted to volconvo.com." True? False? Unknown?

Answer the question and then I'll respond to the rest of your argument.

[Fangrim]

Since this seems to be important, I'll do this first:

Quote by: Zhavric "The individual with the screen name Fangrim has never posted to volconvo.com." True? False? Unknown? Answer the question and then I'll respond to the rest of your argument.

The quoted statement is a claim. Assuming this is the first time it has been brought forward in this context (i.e., we're ignoring the previous times you've posed this question), and assuming nobody has yet responded to this claim, supported it with logical proofs, or indicated any logical fallacies, no evidence or proofs have yet been brought in to indicate whether this claim should be true or false. The claim remains unknown.
However, as soon as proof is indicated (i.e., looking through the profile or records that would show that Fangrim has posted, or simply looking at the computer screen and seeing my posts here), evidence is brought forth for the receiver of the evidence [i hope that makes sense].
With my common sense knowledge and the evidence before me, I then decide/prove the claim to be false.

I did not use the knowledge to decide the claim to default false...just to prove it so.

EDIT: Just to make sure we're not misunderstanding one another, a default claim is a claim that places the burden of proof on those who are negating, instead of those who make the default claim.
We're not debating whether default claims are valid in the sense of very quick decisions of true or false, like in practical situations rather than logical discussions.

Quote by: Zhavric What are you talking about? We don't ignore the need for evidence in the slightest. We have the evidence so we take it for granted. That does not mean we ignore it. It's been proven to us toasters make toast. We must always take into account existing claims. It would be retarded to say "Well, it's unknown if this machine called 'toaster' was designed to make toast." You'd point out that of course it makes toast because you've SEEN it make toast so many times... yet you are demanding we suspend our common sense knowledge in certain scenarios. This is known as a special pleading and is a kind of logical fallacy.

First of all, I completely agreed with you that it would be retarded to not accept that the toaster would make toast. I don't understand why you're still bringing it up, since I made the distinction between practical and nonpractical usage of default or prima facie claims.
Second, I never said we should suspend our common sense knowledge. I said that in day to day life we do not go through those memories to make sure the toaster will make toast; we simply go about our toast-making business. In more theoretical/logical/not-of-immediate-practicality discussions, we should be using that knowledge as evidence throughout the debate, not applying it as evidence for default claims. Again, both sides have the burden of proof for their respective claims.

God is false. No one has offered anything to contradict the default position of false.

Sure they have. They've just been proven wrong. But even if noone has contradicted the default position of false doesn't justify that default claim. We shouldn't have that default claim in the first place.

[shunyadragon]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 That's a great summation of the agnostic stance. Too bad it will be buried in claims that a "creator of the universe" contradicts certain claims, after attempts to redefine it. The extremist atheistic stance is formulaic, and demonstrably illogical. You should just ignore any posts operating on a different meaning for "god" - they obviously don't want to debate the same subject

I do not consider the choice of the 'atheist' position as problematic as you describe. It is true that the non-existence of God cannot be proven. It is likely that most human views of God are likely just that given the lack of objective verifiable evidence for God or Gods, and the quite varibility of the culturally oriented beliefs of what would be a theistic God that is supposed to create and reveal to humanity a plan of salvation in this world or some hypothetical spiritual world. The evidence of a lack of consistency of a theistic gives atheists a good argument for the non-existence of God. This argument is not conclusive, but it is not bad given the choices. I believe ther is an explanation and an argument for a 'Source' called God by some, but that aside the traditional ancient religions offer little as far as a consistent logical and rational argument for a universal creator God.

A Deist God or Gods is problematic, because what good is a God that does nothing, did this God create? What role would a Monist or other God not involved with human destiny play in the world other than watch?

Agnostics may be viewed as undecided fence siters, the only argument I can see for the agnostic is indecision, and the fact that the non-existence of God cannot be proven, and that is not very convincing regardless of its weight philosophy and logic give to the inability to disprove 'things' that lack any objective verifiable evidence to demonstrate their existence.

What other convincing argument can the agnostic offer for their belief, other than the inability to prove the non-existence of a God or Gods?

I believe the theist has little or no support for their arguments in the default claim, infact to rely on this as part of an argument for God at all acknowledges weakness in the other arguments for a theistic God.

[Kamehameha34]

What other convincing argument can the agnostic offer for their belief, other than the inability to prove the non-existence of a God or Gods?

There are no other arguments, because you just listed the only things that necessitate an agnostic stance.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fangrim Since this seems to be important, I'll do this first: The quoted statement is a claim. Assuming this is the first time it has been brought forward in this context (i.e., we're ignoring the previous times you've posed this question), and assuming nobody has yet responded to this claim, supported it with logical proofs, or indicated any logical fallacies, no evidence or proofs have yet been brought in to indicate whether this claim should be true or false. The claim remains unknown. However, as soon as proof is indicated (i.e., looking through the profile or records that would show that Fangrim has posted, or simply looking at the computer screen and seeing my posts here), evidence is brought forth for the receiver of the evidence [i hope that makes sense]. With my common sense knowledge and the evidence before me, I then decide/prove the claim to be false.

Fangrim, this is a very silly way to debate.

If we take your logic into account everything... no matter how outlandish & flawed or proven and observed... everything defaults to unknown. If everything defaults to unknown then there's really no point in having a 'default stance'.

By your logic all three of the following claims default to "unknown":

"The sun is not the moon."
"Earth's moon is bigger than the Earth."
"Life exists on other planets."

True, false, unknown all default to unknown in your model.

Why? What's the point? What do we gain from this?

With a moment's examination of existing information, we understand the first claim is true, the second claim is false, and the third is unknown.

It's silly to even consider a default claim if it's always going to be unknown. Instead, think of the "default claim" as where a claim stands based on known information.

We've observed the sun & the moon in detail. We know the moon is a chunk of rock and the sun is a (comparitively) giant ball of nuclear heated gasses. So what advantage do we have by tossing away this knowledge? Why declare these things "unknown" even for a moment?

[ZNFYRH]

Zhavric,

I don't think you understood the point Fangrim was making.

Quote by: Zhavric By your logic all three of the following claims default to "unknown": "The sun is not the moon." "Earth's moon is bigger than the Earth." "Life exists on other planets."

As claims they are unknown. But as soon as they have some kind of evidentiary support, they are no longer claims but facts.

If I were to say, "Michael Keaton's real name is Michael Douglas but he changed it when he went into acting to avoid confusion" then, as far as you're concerned, that's a claim.

You don't know if I'm right or wrong.

But you would dutifully go to Michael Keaton - Biography and see that my claim has evidence to serve as proof of truth of my claim. That means it's no longer a claim... but a fact.

Fangrim,

I think so far you've presented quite well that since there is no real evidence either way, any claim about God defaults to "unknown."

Well done.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: ZNFYRH As claims they are unknown. But as soon as they have some kind of evidentiary support, they are no longer claims but facts.

ZN, I can't help but notice you failed to answer the question I posed to Fangrim. Perhaps you can answer it:

True, false, unknown all default to unknown in your model.

Why? What's the point? What do we gain from this?

"My friend Steve who's a married batchelor has drawn many square circles." Why on earth would we want to label this claim as unknown? Why would we give it the credence of possibly being true?

Unwind yourself from this nonsensical know-nothingism. The logical position a claim defaults to is based on existing proven claims. That default position changes when new evidence is introduced / old evidence is invalidated / etc.

Show me a person who calls a married batchelor 'unknown' and I'll show you a liar.

[ZNFYRH]

Zhavric,

I like that you used the term "logical position" in reference to claims. I think that's a much more clear way of seeing this whole thing and I'll use that term in my response.

If you start with, "My friend Steve who's a married batchelor has drawn many square circles." then it's a claim which defaults to the logical position of "unknown."

It's just a claim. That's all.

As soon as you start trying to validate it, you see "married bachelor".

Since "bachelor" means "unmarried man" then your claim becomes "false."

It's not about "nonsensical know-nothingism". It's about not jumping to conclusions and maintaining a rational sense of how to look at things.

You keep using the term "existing proven claims" and you should just say "facts". It's as though you want to use these clever expressions and all they've gotten you in the past is grief with moderators and other members. You are a member of a community and not a very considerate one, at that.

A "default position" never changes. The default position of a fact is true. The default position of a claim is unknown. The default position of a lie or falsehood is false. That's all.

This is a process that we all go through when we hear or read a statement, but we do it so fast that you are mistakenly assuming it is inherent in the statement itself.

Every single person on the planet does this.

When confronted with a claim of any kind, you immediately evaluate it for validity. The very act of evaluating, even if it occurs a split second after hearing the statement or while hearing the statement, means that you see the statement as "unknown."

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Zhavric ZN, I can't help but notice you failed to answer the question I posed to Fangrim. Perhaps you can answer it: True, false, unknown all default to unknown in your model. Why? What's the point? What do we gain from this?

Answer the questions posed here, please, in your next post or I will conclude you are unwilling or unable to do so. I tire of your evasions.