Re: Point of contention - help please!

[AtheistBrit]

Hi everyone,

So I'm having a discussion with someone who is a christian and we've reached a point where we seem to be sticking.  He asserts that the burden of proof should be laid at my feet because I am making an assertion ("there is no god") that the majority of the world holds to be false.  I assert that the burden of proof should be laid at HIS feet because he is making an assertion that is a positive assertion ("There IS a god") and negative assertions such as "there is NO god" don't require nearly such a hefty burden of proof.

Which one of us is correct and why?

By the way I've already pointed out the "argumentum ad populum" which he maintains he is not committing because he's not saying "I'm right because most people are", he's saying "the burden of proof lies with you because it's the minority belief".

Thanks guys!  I'd appreciate some help with this one.

[Squid]

Is explaining the ins and outs of hypothesis testing out of the question?  Since were talking about "proof" and therefore indicates an evidence-based argument which falls within the realm of methodological inquiry.

[Ihateusernames]

Hi everyone,

So I'm having a discussion with someone who is a christian and we've reached a point where we seem to be sticking.  He asserts that the burden of proof should be laid at my feet because I am making an assertion ("there is no god") that the majority of the world holds to be false.  I assert that the burden of proof should be laid at HIS feet because he is making an assertion that is a positive assertion ("There IS a god") and negative assertions such as "there is NO god" don't require nearly such a hefty burden of proof.

Which one of us is correct and why?

By the way I've already pointed out the "argumentum ad populum" which he maintains he is not committing because he's not saying "I'm right because most people are", he's saying "the burden of proof lies with you because it's the minority belief".

Thanks guys!  I'd appreciate some help with this one.

You both have the burden of proof.  Unless you are willing to go to a more agnostic stance (which is where atheistic thought is forced to drift when actually debating--extreme agnosticism)  then you do need to prove your statement.

Think about it, if I was to say "there are no computers in the world"  obviously I would have to prove that by demonstrating somehow that there are no computers in the world, you can't just take it as fact or even expect less proof because it is a negative assertion.  Negative assertions have just as much possibility of faultiness as positive ones.

[elliebean]

You both have the burden of proof.  Unless you are willing to go to a more agnostic stance (which is where atheistic thought is forced to drift when actually debating--extreme agnosticism)  then you do need to prove your statement.

Think about it, if I was to say "there are no computers in the world"  obviously I would have to prove that by demonstrating somehow that there are no computers in the world, you can't just take it as fact or even expect less proof because it is a negative assertion.  Negative assertions have just as much possibility of faultiness as positive ones.

Prove it.  

[JillSwift]

By the way I've already pointed out the "argumentum ad populum" which he maintains he is not committing because he's not saying "I'm right because most people are", he's saying "the burden of proof lies with you because it's the minority belief".

Oh please, "I'm right because most people are" is exactly the same as "the burden of proof lies with you because it's the minority belief". This is a typical weaksauce argument relied on by apologists who finds themselves in a corner. Majority or minority of belief has jack-all to do with veracity. Evidence is everything, population is nothing. Something that is real will continue to be so even if no one believes it. Or even if no one is around to believe it.

Even though I'm a "strong" atheist, I always argue from a weak atheist stance. This attempt to shift the burden of proof is why I do that. Standing with the null hypothesis makes it impossible for them to imply that you've made some kind of testable claim, and it also relieves you of the burden of having to walk the inexperienced apologists though definitional fallacies (which are what the concept of god is actually based on.)

You can through this guy for a loop. Try: "I concede I can not disprove god, nor can I disprove leprechauns, flying reindeer, unicorns or the tooth fairy. However, I still see no reason to believe in any of those things as they have no evidence of their existence. Can you to offer any solid, testable evidence for god?"

That will force him/her to abandon trying to shift the burden of proof, and we all know there is nothing even resembling empirical evidence for god. (If there was, the idea of faith would have been abandoned in favor of it. Seriously, why "just believe" when you can know?)

[Quinn Mander]

Prove it.  

IHUN, but I have yet to see anyone categorically demonstrate non-existence of any kind, in any way.  I'm curious to hear what Squid has to say about methodology.

[i_am_i]

He's right, this Christian you're arguing with. If you say "there is no God" then you're going to have to prove it which is, of course, impossible.  

Try this instead. Ask him what his favorite fiction novel is, then ask him to name his favorite character from that novel. Then ask him why he doesn't pray to that character. I'll leave the rest to you.

[Squid]

Prove it.  

IHUN, but I have yet to see anyone categorically demonstrate non-existence of any kind, in any way.  I'm curious to hear what Squid has to say about methodology.

In a very elementary version - if we look at it from a hypothesis testing standpoint and the hypothesis to be tested is "There is a God" (assuming the generic Xian God and all that stuff) then the null hypothesis would be μ = 0 or nonexistence of God.  We start with a platform of nothing and then to suggest an entity "There is a God" must be tested to either reject or not reject the null hypothesis.

However, in philosophy it's a bit different since hypothesis testing assumes a naturalistic realm and not supernatural, I suppose it depends on what playing field you want to debate those points.

[JillSwift]

However, in philosophy it's a bit different since hypothesis testing assumes a naturalistic realm and not supernatural, I suppose it depends on what playing field you want to debate those points.

This is another interesting point in the debate that gets ignored regularly.

Given that the supernatural is, by definition, not a part of the natural universe and that fact kind-of gives apologists a pass on the evidence thing and given that for the same reasons nothing supernatural can be rejected categorically, there are questions left to ask.

Why should I care about this supernatural critter if it has no effect on the universe in which I live? If it does have an effect, where can I see it? How is it managing to have an effect without being part of the natural world? If it created the natural world, how did it make it something utterly separate from itself?

[Occam]

About 55 years ago I was discussing this with an intelligent theist.  He agreed that he had no proof but believed by faith.  Further, he said atheists were faith-blind.  I responded that there is no proof available on either side, but that my belief in the lack of a god was equally strong and by faith.  However, I continued that By Occam's razor, I should ignore any condition that cannot be shown to contribute any demonstrable effect on the conclusion.  Further, by the Princple of Falsifiability, if a premise cannot be shown to be false under any conditions available, it is meaningless.  Since there is no condition we can imagine that could show that god does not exist, then the statement, "god exists" is meaningless.  

Occam

[Gawen]

he's saying "the burden of proof lies with you because it's the minority belief".

Sorry, but that's just bunk.

I agree with the others. By saying "there is no god", you also have the burden. Simply, whoever makes the positive claim has the burden. But when both sides claim 'yes there is/no there isn't', both sides have the burden.

[Quinn Mander]

Prove it.

IHUN, but I have yet to see anyone categorically demonstrate non-existence of any kind, in any way. I'm curious to hear what Squid has to say about methodology.

In a very elementary version - if we look at it from a hypothesis testing standpoint and the hypothesis to be tested is "There is a God" (assuming the generic Xian God and all that stuff) then the null hypothesis would be μ = 0 or nonexistence of God. We start with a platform of nothing and then to suggest an entity "There is a God" must be tested to either reject or not reject the null hypothesis.

However, in philosophy it's a bit different since hypothesis testing assumes a naturalistic realm and not supernatural, I suppose it depends on what playing field you want to debate those points.

Thanks for elucidating the null hypotheis.  I had suspected the argument might run along these lines, but have much still to learn of methodology, and didn't want to toss around unsubstantiated bs.  I'd thought it would be possible to adopt the negative stance as the hypothesis, i.e., in ihateusernames example of computers, you would adopt the negative postion that computers do not exist, and look for positive evidence to falsify it - and obviously, one instance of a computer, or evidence of computers, would falsify it.  Similarly with god.  And for so long as you fail to find positive evidence, you persist in holding to the hypothesis of non-existence.  Am I understanding Squid correctly?

As others have pointed out, all evidentiary argument is ordinarily dismissed (generally only evidence against god), on the basis of god being outside the laws of nature and evidence.  But I have to agree with these sentiments...

Given that the supernatural is, by definition, not a part of the natural universe and that fact kind-of gives apologists a pass on the evidence thing and given that for the same reasons nothing supernatural can be rejected categorically, there are questions left to ask.

Why should I care about this supernatural critter if it has no effect on the universe in which I live? If it does have an effect, where can I see it? How is it managing to have an effect without being part of the natural world? If it created the natural world, how did it make it something utterly separate from itself?

However, I continued that By Occam's razor, I should ignore any condition that cannot be shown to contribute any demonstrable effect on the conclusion.

It seems to me, any diety outside the laws of physics would at least have be able to, in some way,  interact with the laws of physics in order to produce effects within nature - those effects normally attributed to god by the faithful.  And why can't those effects then be detected and studied?

[i_am_i]

It seems to me, any diety outside the laws of physics would at least have be able to, in some way,  interact with the laws of physics in order to produce effects within nature - those effects normally attributed to god by the faithful.  And why can't those effects then be detected and studied?

I think they are being detected and studied already. Some people call it evidence of God's existence and others call it scientific research, astrophysics, physical cosmology and such, none of which indicate the existence of any supreme creative intelligence unless one chooses to interpret it all that way. And now you're right back to where you started.

No matter how much we learn about the universe there will always be those who insist that the data points to God.

[Quinn Mander]

It seems to me, any diety outside the laws of physics would at least have be able to, in some way, interact with the laws of physics in order to produce effects within nature - those effects normally attributed to god by the faithful. And why can't those effects then be detected and studied?

I think they are being detected and studied already. Some people call it evidence of God's existence and others call it scientific research, astrophysics, physical cosmology and such, none of which indicate the existence of any supreme creative intelligence unless one chooses to interpret it all that way. And now you're right back to where you started.

No matter how much we learn about the universe there will always be those who insist that the data points to God.

Good point.

[Squid]

Thanks for elucidating the null hypotheis.  I had suspected the argument might run along these lines, but have much still to learn of methodology, and didn't want to toss around unsubstantiated bs.  I'd thought it would be possible to adopt the negative stance as the hypothesis, i.e., in ihateusernames example of computers, you would adopt the negative postion that computers do not exist, and look for positive evidence to falsify it - and obviously, one instance of a computer, or evidence of computers, would falsify it.  Similarly with god.  And for so long as you fail to find positive evidence, you persist in holding to the hypothesis of non-existence.  Am I understanding Squid correctly?

Yep, that's pretty much the gist of it.