the default claim for God's existence...

[5010]

Quote by: Zhavric "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.

That I agree with. So why do the atheists fight against the claim that the existence of God is unknown?

[Kamehameha34]

There is no god is a reply to the first claim you put on there.

Because it is a contradictory claim. What if I said "there is a god" is just a reply to the claim "there is no god"?

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.

I don't care whatever twisted definition of "atheist" you have. That's quite irrelevant. What's relevant is this:

Quote by: Zhavric God is impossible. This statement is also true.

"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.

I didn't say there was ever evidence for it. I said that no evidence for it doesn't equal evidence against it.

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.

It makes no difference who brought the claim first.. they are still unknown.

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:

Those "exceptions" entail a suppressed premises. They aren't really exceptions at all - they just accept some premises as "common sense".

Now tell me, what is the suppressed premise that leads you to believe that no god exists?

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric 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.

First of all, I don't even see how this challenge is even relevant to what I'm talking about. My opinion or evidence for whether the FSM exists has nothing to do this discussion of burdens of proof. You provide no logical link whatsoever in this post: you simply give me a rather childish ultimatum without any reason why I need to respond to your particular wishes. Please address why this challenge even matters, and not just in a single, condescending sentence.

Secondly, you've failed to describe the characteristics of the FSM. I know of the general concept of the FSM as a mimickry of the Christian God and intelligent design, but I don't actually know what the FSM is in the minds of those who would believe him. The easiest way for me to disprove his existence is to show an inconsistency or contradiction between his attributes and some other knowledge, or to provide evidence that shows these attributes to be impossible. In other words, I would need more information as to the characteristics of this FSM. If, however, his characteristic is that we don't know very much about him, and that his attributes will fluidly adapt to my criticisms, I guess I would have to go with that (as I suppose many Christians force you to do with God).

So, my supposed claim here is that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist. Because I am making this affirmation, I have the burden of proof, and must provide evidence. The claim does not default true, because I must prove it so, rather than my opponent having to do so. Of course, if he had claimed that the FSM does exist, he would have his respective burden of proof, and neither would his claim default true.
From the information that I have in front of me, the FSM is 1) capable of flight, or even permanently flying, 2) made of, and perhaps spritually integrated with, spaghetti, and 3) a "monster," whatever that would mean in this context. He's good in some sense, or at least is a positive being in its believers minds. Most of all, people openly admit to his simply being a fabrication to mimick Christian's belief in God, ridicule intelligent design, and to prove a very potent piece of rhetoric and basis for argumentation as in, ironically, this situation.
Out of this, I would attempt the following arguments (note that these won't be perfect, and some will undoubtedly be proved wrong, but heck, I'm trying; also, don't try to screw me on the God issue with this one. Christians would provide attributes of God that would nullify these arguments if you try to turn them)
Proof: Because the flying spaghetti monster is made out of matter (spaghetti), he exists in the natural world and can be seen, interacted with, and touched. Additionally, as far as I know, he has not written any scriptures, or given messages other than through personal contact. All indications of a superficial look at the words comprising his name are that he exists in a form that flies around in the sky, and thus should be observable. Yet, there have been no sighting of this FSM, no news reports of him being seen, no citations of his doings. Because, on a basic level of knowledge, he either exists and in their physical presence told people that he does (I would assume this is part of what FSM is, that he has believers and is the icon of a religious belief), or he is a fabrication and something purely made up, and because if he did tell people of his existence he should be observable by our current standards of observability and knowledge, we come to the conclusion that he does not exist.
Now, obviously that's a rather pithy argumentation, with holes, but it was an attempt. I worked with my knowledge of what FSM was, and I tried to refute his existence and fulfill the burden of proof for my claim that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist.
I hope that was sufficient for your challenge.

Thirdly, I don't know what this "special pleading" is that you're referring to. I'm quite honestly a little confused, since I explained earlier and throughout my posts that any affirmation of a claim gives its proponent the burden of proof. This isn't just about God, if that's what your special pleading is. See my "theoretical" vs. "practical" analysis through my much earlier posts.


Now, I put an effort in this post, so it'd be nice if there was a little reciprocation, rather than what we saw in our earlier banter. I'm glad you returned to this thread though.

EDIT: Also, I want to make this clear. You said that the burden of proof lies with the theists, and I agree with this in the sense that they have the burden of proof when they claim that God exists. However, I disagree in a case where a hard atheist claims that God does not exist. In this case, he has the burden of proof, not the dissenting theist or even agnostic, who here is simply trying to refute that claim, possibly seeking a simple unknown status of God, rather than a direct opposite to the hard atheisit claim that he does exist. I hope that clears that up.
The main confusing thing I think is that for the "God does not exist" claim, we can sum up its proponents with the term atheists. For the dissenters to that claim, however, we have both theists and agnostics. Let's not forget that latter half of the negative.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: 5010 That I agree with. So why do the atheists fight against the claim that the existence of God is unknown?

Because 'unknown' is far too much credence to give to something so absurd. Do you think married batchelors and square circles should be 'unknown'.

[Kamehameha34]

Because 'unknown' is far too much credence to give to something so absurd. Do you think married batchelors and square circles should be 'unknown'.

Good good, now provide a shred of evidence that square circles are on par with a creator of the universe and you're set. :rolleyes:

[rez]

God does not represent a real possibility to Zharvic.

The hypothesis of god creates appeal for atheists and theists alike. The fact of the matter is, some may find it more appealing to be an atheist and some may prefer to be a theist.

I see the appeal for both sides of the story, but who is being the most honest in the situation?

The question becomes should one be forced to make a decision between the two "passional decisions"?

[Kamehameha34]

I hold that logical decisions shouldn't be made out of passion. That's why I'm an agnostic.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: rez God does not represent a real possibility to Zharvic.

God doesn't represent a real possibility to anyone, Rez. God is an invalid possibility that theists want to be real. That doesn't make him so.

The hypothesis of god creates appeal for atheists and theists alike. The fact of the matter is, some may find it more appealing to be an atheist and some may prefer to be a theist.

Irrelevant to the discussion. Please stay on topic.

I see the appeal for both sides of the story, but who is being the most honest in the situation?

Atheists, of course.

The question becomes should one be forced to make a decision between the two "passional decisions"?

No one should be forced to do anything... but the alternative to not choosing is the intellectual bankruptcy of agnosticism. So, I strongly encourage a decision.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Good good, now provide a shred of evidence that square circles are on par with a creator of the universe and you're set. :rolleyes:

You're so cute when you try to fight back.

A square cannot have the attributes of a circle. A thing as complex and sophisticated as god would have to be cannot have existed at the beginning of our universe. It's that simple.

Cue your intellectual drivel; the god whose only attribute is to evade whatever logical argument presented to you.

[Yasa]

Not sure if this has been argued yet, so bare with me.

The claim "god exists" has the burden of proof because it was presented first. The claim "god does not exist" did not exist before the claim that he did exist existed. Example: the claim that electrons exist had the burden of proof. The reason for such a claim was because there was evidence to support it. It was certainly claimed before "electrons do not exist". If someone claimed they do not exist, they have burden of proof because the opposite has proof claiming it's validity. There was never a time when people just randomly said "electrons do not exist" or "god does not exist" before the opposites (that they do exist) was claimed.

The existence of god has no proof, and since the claim of his existence must have came before the claim negating his existence, the burden of proof lies within the hands of the theists.

Edit: I used the example of the claim that electrons exist, but any such scientific claim with proof would be suitable.

[Jack]

It has been, Yasa, but you put it very well. Restating the obvious is common here. I just wish it had more impact.

[rez]

Quote by: Zhavric Irrelevant to the discussion. Please stay on topic.

I am just saying that the appeal to god determines the default claim to god. No?

[ZNFYRH]

Yasa,
Isherwood,

There is another way to look at it that is equally logical. I have to be very careful to make sure I express this the way I'm thinking it.

I used the following as references to shape my position:

Burden of proof (logical fallacy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Negative proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The problem with this whole thing is that it deals with the question of existence, and it's a question that applies to anything, God or electrons, so I'm going to keep this general.

The opposite of existence is non-existence. That's just common sense.

For the purposes of stating my position, claiming that something exists will be X and claiming that it doesn't will be Y.

X and Y are opposites. We're good so far.

Here's where things get tricky... we're talking about existence. This changes the context of the entire issue of burden of proof, negative proof, and argument from ignorance.

Regardless of what thing we are using as an example, we have to consider the context of the thing itself, it's time-based context, and it's space-based context.

The state of existence needs a time-based context; are we talking about this exact moment, 10 years ago, or at any point in time up to now?

The state of existence also needs some kind of space-based context; are we talking about this room, this planet, or the entire known universe?

Granted, if we using a time or space context of the more infinite variety, either state of existence is impossible to prove or disprove. We currently have no way of looking back in time beyond our own memories or historic records and we have no way of viewing across the distances of space.

But for the sake of my statement, I'll trudge onward with the following:

With existence, both X and Y stand alone.

Failing to prove X does not automatically make Y correct. And vice versa.

Consider a closed shoe box sitting on a table and someone saying that in that shoe box exists a fully-grown male elephant (the claim X).

The context is the thing (fully-grown male elephant), the time (now) and the space (the shoe box).

The size of a fully-grown male elephant is documented and well-defined. As is the size of the shoe box.

The person claiming X would be hard-pressed to prove that a fully-grown male elephant could be in that shoe box. They could not prove it. That does not automatically make it false.

Instead, the counter-claim is proposed, claim Y. By giving the dimensions of a fully-grown male elephant and the dimensions of the shoe box, that is proof that claim Y is true.

Notice that failing to prove X didn't make Y true automatically.

Ridiculous sounding, but it describes the process. Let's go to something more reasonable.

Outside your door (space) right now (time) is a baby in a basket (thing)... claim X.

Without opening the door, can you prove X? The correct answer is "no."
Does that mean X is automatically false (thus making Y true)? The correct answer is "no."

The context of the thing and the space don't contradict. But the time context is unanswered until more evidence is acquired.

X and Y are not untrue. They just aren't proven. Because they are unproven, their default condition is "unknown."

There are numerous examples of things that couldn't be proven one way or the other until more evidence was found. Scientifically, that didn't disprove them. Even now, on this very forum, there is an article about more facts coming to light regarding the relationship between T-rex and birds.

A direct genetic relationship (thing) between avian species and T-rex (space) exists (time)... claim X.

The time context might become more relevant if we see an evolution of T-rex. The space context is a limit to one species of dinosaur and not all dinosaurs. The genetic relationship is the contextual "thing."

Two years ago, there wasn't as much evidence as there is today to substantiate the claim X. That didn't mean it was automatically false, it just meant that it wasn't proven. Unknown.

[5010]

Quote by: Zhavric A square cannot have the attributes of a circle. A thing as complex and sophisticated as god would have to be cannot have existed at the beginning of our universe. It's that simple.

Assuming you mean the Christian God, your point assumes that God is natural whereas the Christian God is described as supernatural.

[Jack]

The opposite of existence is non-existence.

Our point is that the existence of gods has not been supported by evidence. So philosophically, I agree that the opposite of the existence of gods is the non-existence of gods. But practically, in the real world where theists claim god exists, there is no evidence to support that god is anything more than a mental construct, a fabrication, a mass delusion. That's why we say that until the existence of gods can be shown to be more than just a concept, there's no need to try to develop opposing evidence. To disprove the notion of gods, the notion of gods must first provide evidence that can then be disputed.

[ZNFYRH]

Isherwood,

You just allowed yourself to repeat the same ignorance I was speaking of in my post.

Quote by: Isherwood there is no evidence to support that god is anything more than a mental construct, a fabrication, a mass delusion

Do you see what you did there?

Your statement is the equivalent of stating that there is no evidence disproving claim Y... the non-existence claim.

You automatically mixed the two claims, and incorrectly and ignorantly so.

Break down your statement into two parts...

"there is no evidence to support that god is anything"

That first part is saying that there is no evidence of claim X.

"a mental construct, a fabrication, a mass delusion"

Those are all claim Y.

Basically, you just said that because there is no evidence of the positive, the negative is automatically true.

As far as existence is concerned, a lack of evidence for one claim never ever proves the counterclaim.

[Yasa]

Okay ZNFYRH, I'll admit it doesn't prove Y. However, it should still default to false because of the argument I made earlier. Claims without valid evidence could in fact end up being true, but untill they are proven they are considered false.

What can you say about unicorns? minotaurs? goku? is their existence unknown? I mean... it's not like we can disprove their existence, can we?

[Kamehameha34]

A square cannot have the attributes of a circle. A thing as complex and sophisticated as god would have to be cannot have existed at the beginning of our universe. It's that simple.

..And you restate your original, fallacious argument.

It's your job to prove that gods are on par with square circles. You've not done so. You lost the point. It's that simple.

[Kamehameha34]

Our point is that the existence of gods has not been supported by evidence. So philosophically, I agree that the opposite of the existence of gods is the non-existence of gods. But practically, in the real world where theists claim god exists, there is no evidence to support that god is anything more than a mental construct, a fabrication, a mass delusion.

.. Or less than true. Saying god doesn't exist out of what you may view as convenience doesn't make it a logical claim.

That's why we say that until the existence of gods can be shown to be more than just a concept, there's no need to try to develop opposing evidence.

That's why they say that until the existence of gods can be shown to be just a concept, there's no need to try and develop supporting evidence.

Negative claims don't have any sort of priority. I don't know why you think your faith is special.

However, it should still default to false because of the argument I made earlier.

Wrong, nothing defaults to false unless it contradicts existing evidence. The argument you presented earlier is just a veiled attempt to introduce the bandwagon fallacy.

The existence of a claim in someone's mind has nothing to do with the truth value of that claim. It doesn't matter which claim was "brought first".

Logic isn't a board game.

[Yasa]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Wrong, nothing defaults to false unless it contradicts existing evidence. The argument you presented earlier is just a veiled attempt to introduce the bandwagon fallacy. The existence of a claim in someone's mind has nothing to do with the truth value of that claim. It doesn't matter which claim was "brought first". Logic isn't a board game.

It certainly should matter which was brought first. If one day someone simply proposed a God exists, with absolutely no viable evidence to support this claim, why should he not have the burden of proof? It's not like the claim "god does not exist" came first. When someone claims something with nothing to back it up, it should not default to unkown...

What is the default claim to the following: Unicorns exist.