the default claim for God's existence...

[Jack]

Not if you're defending a concept that proposes something exists in real space and time. If you're just creating mind experiments, sure. I can accept any number of explanations for gods to exist in theory, conceptually. But those explanations don't translate to the real world.

[Kamehameha34]

So why does the negative claim gain exempt status from your standard of evidence?

[Jack]

It doesn't. As I've said before, if you're cocky enough to claim you can prove gods don't exist, go right ahead. I'd love to see your evidence.
Further, I am an atheist because I fail to believe theist's claims that gods exist. Their claims lack substance. I'm under no obligation to accept claims for which there's no evidence.

[Kamehameha34]

It doesn't.

So you either:

A. Have evidence against god's existence, or
B. Are agnostic.

[5010]

Quote by: Isherwood Further, I am an atheist because I fail to believe theist's claims that gods exist. Their claims lack substance. I'm under no obligation to accept claims for which there's no evidence.

Sure, and to the geocentrist hundreds of years ago, heliocentrism sounded extraordinary. A western scientist before the 16th century, based on evidence known at the time, would conclude and believe that geocentrism is true and heliocentrism is false. And such a person would be perfectly reasonable in doing so. A person living in the 17th century with knowledge of evidence at that time would be reasonable to conclude and believe that heliocentrism is true and geocentrism is false. A person living today would more reasonably believe that neither theory is completely accurate, and instead the motions of bodies in space are related to forces from all other bodies in space. Reasonable belief does not necessarily lead to truth.

So except for times that God shakes the world in miracles, the atheist belief that God's existence is false is reasonable, but the claim that God's existence is proved false by lack of evidence is still fallacious.

[yourwrong]

[quote=Fangrim;355916]
He smugly replied that he wasn't the one that needed evidence, but instead I needed evidence to prove that he did exist. Essentially, he was defaulting to a negative claim, with me having the burden of proof.

The Negative does have the right of the burden of proof. Unless you can make a strong case that God exists then he automaticaly wins. For I could make a claim that rabbits fly. To argue against such a claim would be stupid. Better to ignore it.

[Jack]

Have evidence against god's existence

This presumes that gods are even possible. There is no evidence they are. I'm not agnostic about it. I know for a fact there is no evidence to support the notion that there are such things as gods.

You might as well ask me to provide evidence that morphlics don't exist for all the sense that makes. Are you agnostic on the possibility of morphlics? They defy description, they only exist for those who first believe in them.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: yourwrong The Negative does have the right of the burden of proof. Unless you can make a strong case that God exists then he automaticaly wins. For I could make a claim that rabbits fly. To argue against such a claim would be stupid. Better to ignore it.

Not at all. The Negative of a claim (for instance, the theist objecting the claim that God does not exist; I know it's confusing that the claim itself is "negative" in nature) does not have the burden of proof to demonstrate the opposite claim (here, that God exists).
Otherwise...("God exists!" "What evidence do you have?" "I don't need evidence! You need to prove me wrong! Nya nya!"). I dislike that situation as much as you do, not only because it's stupid, illogical, and defeats the purpose of debate, but because the same argument would be applied against theists by atheists. Just add the word "not" in the theist claim.
Additionally, you have nothing valid to demonstrate why the God hypothesis is different from other claims in a way that requires theists to have the burden of proof when an atheist claims that God does not exist. Logically, and in a valid debate, the affirmative claim has the burden of proof, and must provide evidence for his claim, so the atheist (in making the affirmation that God does not exist; I know...confusing) has the burden of proof, not the theist. Of course, theists would have the burden of proof when affirming the claim that God does exist.

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Isherwood This presumes that gods are even possible. There is no evidence they are. I'm not agnostic about it. I know for a fact there is no evidence to support the notion that there are such things as gods. You might as well ask me to provide evidence that morphlics don't exist for all the sense that makes. Are you agnostic on the possibility of morphlics? They defy description, they only exist for those who first believe in them.

I can't really criticize the way you go about your own private beliefs, so that's perfectly fine with me. If you're of the basic belief of atheism, simply not believing in a god or gods, then that logical process is perfectly valid: you aren't attempting to prove God does not exist, you're just assessing that theists have not proven that God exists.

What is not fine with me is putting the burden of proof on theists when an atheist asserts that God does not exist. But you agree with me there ^^

[jeffl]

Quote by: yourwrong The Negative does have the right of the burden of proof. Unless you can make a strong case that God exists then he automaticaly wins. For I could make a claim that rabbits fly. To argue against such a claim would be stupid. Better to ignore it.

It's clear, then, that this "right of the burden of proof" exists simply to make things more manageable rather than more certain. It is worth asking, with this filter what of God can we expect to see?

I suggest that in this context God presents as Truth; and the evidence for the existance of Truth is the existance of truth detectors like the brain.

[Kamehameha34]

This presumes that gods are even possible.

No. It doesn't.

Evidence doesn't need to exist for something in order for evidence to exist against it. There's no evidence for flying purple elephants occuring naturally - and I don't need to wait for a study to come out supporting them to point out the evidence against their existence.

That kind of logic is nonsensical. You're assuming that gods don't exist. "Gods don't exist" is a claim.

You either have evidence for it, or you don't. The negative, "Gods exist", is completely irrelevant. Anything you offer should be independent of that claim, the evidence for that claim, lack thereof, etc.

Maintaining that there's no evidence for the theistic position doesn't validate atheism. It validates agnosticism.

You might as well ask me to provide evidence that morphlics don't exist for all the sense that makes. Are you agnostic on the possibility of morphlics? They defy description, they only exist for those who first believe in them.

You completely veered off your main point. You, at first said that my asking you for evidence against a claim presumes that there is evidence for a claim - or in short:

X != X

You're use of the phrase "you might as well.." implies a relationship with the contents preceding and proceding the clause, yet what you're saying now is that "god" isn't properly defined.

Anyway, I'll treat it like a different point.

god - Definitions from Dictionary.com

1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fangrim What is not fine with me is putting the burden of proof on theists when an atheist asserts that God does not exist. But you agree with me there ^^

The burden of proof belongs on theists. Period.

You guys are the ones claiming there's a thing called god (with all the absurdities and unsupported claims involved). You're the ones who want the special pleading (a type of fallacy) for yahweh, but not for anything equally silly.

The default claim for god is false. God isn't real. If you believe otherwise, then I challenge you with the following statement:

Prove the flying sphagetti monster (FSM) doesn't exist.

If you maintain god's default claim is not false, then provide rock-solid evidence the FSM doesn't exist in your next post or concede the debate.

I honestly do not know why this particular issue is so challenging for members of volconvo.com. It's as though you willfully refuse to understand what a special pleading is.

[Jack]

Evidence doesn't need to exist for something in order for evidence to exist against it.

So I can propose any old thing and then demand you provide evidence it doesn't exist? If theists wish to debate the hypothetical possibility of gods, that can be done. Instead they propose gods as a reality. If faith proves gods, then a lack of faith should disprove them. Why doesn't it?

[5010]

Fallacy does not prove or disprove anything about God. Just because one uses special pleading to support something exists doesn't mean they prove it doesn't exist by fallacy. Just because one uses burden of proof to support something doesn't exist doesn't mean they prove it exists by fallacy.

Like I said earlier, there are many seemingly absurd things shown by science that were reasonably rejected before the research indicated otherwise. If one suggests that God doesn't exist until hard evidence is given, they are consistent to suggest that the sun stopped moving around the earth and the earth began moving around the sun the moment evidence of heliocentrism was given.

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: 5010 Like I said earlier, there are many seemingly absurd things shown by science that were reasonably rejected before the research indicated otherwise. If one suggests that God doesn't exist until hard evidence is given, they are consistent to suggest that the sun stopped moving around the earth and the earth began moving around the sun the moment evidence of heliocentrism was given. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.

Indeed. You can't have it both ways.

You can't propose unsupported BS and compare it with documents scientific evidence. The seemingly absurd things show by science to be true all had one thing in common: they were supported with evidence. There is no evidence for god, thus it's tremendously dishonest to draw the conclusion you've presented here.

It takes evidence to transform absurdity into possibilty.

We know the Earth revolves around the sun because of evidence.

Teleportation is impossible.

Humans traveling at the speed of light is impossible.

Machines that think like humans are impossible.

These three statements are true. If they turn out someday to be false, you'll know because scientists will do their CENSORED homework and provide evidence.

God is impossible.

This statement is also true. Where is your evidence proving otherwise?

[5010]

Zhav, If we play by your rules, then we must say that until evidence for dinosaurs was provided, it was impossible for dinosaurs to exist. Therefore dinosaurs have only existed since the discovery of evidence.
But the evidence for dinosaurs is through fossils that are shown to be older than the point of discovery. Therefore they did exist before they were discovered.

So your rules suggest that the past is changed by research. But there is no evidence to verify the changing of the past, therefore your rules are impossible.

Time to give it up, dude.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: 5010 Zhav, If we play by your rules, then we must say that until evidence for dinosaurs was provided, it was impossible for dinosaurs to exist. Therefore dinosaurs have only existed since the discovery of evidence.

This is a textbook example of what I call the hindsight fallacy. We've become jaded in our scientifically saturated 2000's. It's hard for us to imagine a scenario where our considerable knowledge didn't exist.

Imagine now going back to the 1400's and stating to the people there (without anything save for your word), "There used to be giant lizards(?) that lived millions of years ago. Some were the size of cathedrals!"

The best you could hope for is to be laughed at. More likely, a group of Christians would torture and murder you to save your soul from the obvious 'madness' gripping you.

What's challenging for some to understand here is we're discussing what we can honestly claim. That takes evidence.

It is evidence that seperates the absurdities from the facts, 5010.

But the evidence for dinosaurs is through fossils that are shown to be older than the point of discovery. Therefore they did exist before they were discovered.

You're confusing what is absolutely true versus what we have discovered.

I am currently at an office. There is a person sitting next to me. You haven't discovered what their name is nor would you have known this individual existed had I not told you. You could guess at their name, but even if you happened to guess it, you'd only be able to know for sure if you checked (gathered evidence). However, no one is asserting this individual doesn't exist until you discover them.

So your rules suggest that the past is changed by research.

No. The straw man you constructed and attacked changes the past. My actual argument (the one you failed to address) makes no such claim.

Time to give it up, dude.

Why? I just soundly refuted your argument.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Isherwood So I can propose any old thing and then demand you provide evidence it doesn't exist? If theists wish to debate the hypothetical possibility of gods, that can be done. Instead they propose gods as a reality. If faith proves gods, then a lack of faith should disprove them. Why doesn't it?

I'm not trying to validate faith, nor theism. As I've no doubt you've heard me say - agnosticism is the most logical position (unless you account for infinite regression, but that's another issue.)

If you propose something ridiculous, it will probably seem ridiculous to me because I know it goes against patterns I've seen in nature. Like molepeople - of all of the terrain we've unearthed, we've discovered no molepeople or evidence of them, thereby making claims of molepeople ridiculous.

We have no such knowledge of god. There are no observable accounts of a "god" not being where it "could be".

The simple fact that both molepeople and god are unfalsifiable doesn't mean you can write one off as the other.

The burden of proof belongs on theists. Period.

And those who propose the opposite of their claim.

"There is a god" is a claim.
"There is no god" is a claim.

A lack of evidence for claim X =/= Evidence for ~X.

It's a simple concept - ad ignorantium. This is where your entire argument falls apart, and this is where you must either provide evidence against god*, or concede the debate. It's really that straightforward - you have nothing left to contribute to the discussion if you're going to keep proposing the same fallacy masked in appeal to ridicule.



*

Quote by: The definition for god 1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.

Oh, and you can disprove anything you want if you define it with arbitrary and unneeded attributes (like the ability to create energy). My point in posting this definition is to prove that tactic won't work - "creating" a universe is as simple as making a universe where there wasn't one before, even if you have to draw from existing materials.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: DBZ fan And those who propose the opposite of their claim. "There is a god" is a claim. "There is no god" is a claim.

Incomplete and disnohest.

There is no god is a reply to the first claim you put on there. We've also told you over and over (as you've chosen to ignore) "there is no god" isn't the wording of the claim atheists use.

"There isn't enough evidence to conclude god is possible." Is a claim... one for which theists (who brought the claim in the first place) must provide support to overturn.

Your assertions are dishonest because we know theists are the ones who brough the claim of god's existence. Atheists are a very "new" idea as far as humanity is concerned.

Kame, you're going to need to start arguing honestly.

A lack of evidence for claim X =/= Evidence for ~X.

Once again: incomplete and dishonest. See above. I've posted over and over the exceptions to teh argument from ignorance fallacy. I know you've read it. I know it completely destroys your argument... so I really can't blame you for ignoring it. How ironic? Once again for old time's sake:

In general, no inferences can be drawn from a lack of evidence. This is often summed up in epigrams such as "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." In some circumstances, though, the absence of evidence can be used as the base for an inference.
...
This "burden of proof" is often generalized informally in debate and dialogue, where the person presenting a claim -- particularly an unusual or improbable claim -- is usually considered to have the "burden of proof" in proving his claim. If he cannot provide evidence supporting his claim, many rational observers will reject his claim. This is particularly true where his claim contradicts well-established (and well-supported) aspects of reality such as the basic laws of physics. So the following argument is usually considered rational.

Person X claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine
Person X cannot (or will not) provide evidence that his perpetual motion machine works
A working perpetual motion machine would violate the laws of thermodynamics
Therefore, Person X is incorrect in his claim.

Now that we've corrected your false accusation of the argument from ignorance I will not entertain you repeating it back over and over. Do you have anything further to add to the debate or should I anticipate more incomplete and dishonest out-of-context unsupported claims?

[5010]

Sorry but it is so easy to construct strawmen with all the straw being tossed around.

Zhav, I agree that 400 years ago people would have laughed at anyone who proposed that two legged giant bird-lizards walked the planet 100's of millions of years before. Their belief that no such thing could exist by lack of evidence has just as much support as your belief that God can not exist by lack of evidence. But the fact that dinosaur evidence had been discovered proves that what is considered absurd is possible.