Happy Atheist Forum

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.

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.

Quote from: "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.

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.

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"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.  

Quote from: "AtheistBrit"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?)

Quote from: "elliebean"Prove it.  

:P 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.

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.

Quote from: "Quinn Mander"

Quote from: "elliebean"Prove it.  

:P 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.

Quote from: "Squid"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?

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

Quote from: "AtheistBrit"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.

Quote from: "Squid"

Quote from: "Quinn Mander"

Quote from: "elliebean"Prove it.

:P 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...

Quote from: "JillSwift"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?

Quote from: "Occam"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?

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "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.

Quote from: "Quinn Mander"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.

Ask Him what proof does he have that verifies his existence to him.. It's likely all circular nonsense.. Most Christians think a said GOD created everything and yet we know this to be impossible because one can not create that which oneself requires to exist.. Thus this further diminishes the value of a GOD's existence. So I can post an entire list to show why a GOD is ridiculous to begin with, and why creationism is a self-contradiction...

So ask your Christian friend how can his GOD design and create the following into existence, and why these very things are exactly the same things that make us all possible to exist.

Existence
Intelligence
Information
Knowledge
Energy
Empty Space
Self-awareness
Self-identity
Consciousness
A place for one's self to exist
Mind containment
Color: Black and White, or RGB
Infinity
Wisdom
Time
Sight
Hearing
Smell
Observation
Calculation
Manipulation
Thought
Perception
Reality
Feelings
Emotions
Experience
Experiences
Complexity
Cause and effect
Any Pattern or Patterns
Morality
Cognitive behavior
Inertia
Progress / progression
Mental Processing
Memory
Osculation
Intent
Ability
Positive and Negative
Imagination
Design
Point of View
Behavior
Life
Senses
Mobility
Power
Divinity
Math

Thanks everyone for the replies so far!

I should have pointed out that he is the one insisting that I'm saying "there is NO god" when I have in fact repeatedly pointed out that I'm simply stating "there is no evidence for god, therefore until there is I will assume he doesn't exist, in the same way that unicorns and fairies can be assumed to not exist until evidence arises that they might". He still insists that the burden of proof lies with me simply because I am arguing from a minority point of view. He used the example of a few people saying the world was round when everyone at the time believed the world to be flat; it was the job of the minority round-earthers to prove to the flat-earthers that the world was round, and NOT the job of the flat-earthers to demonstrate that the world was flat, because most people at the time believed the world to be round. I'm not smart enough to come up with a good reason why this argument is wrong.

Your world is flat argument is invalid because the fact the Earth is round has scientifically been established by verifiable observation, and by the fact that we can take orbital satellites and photograph it.. Hell, you can go on youtube and learn how to build your own orbital balloon that will take pictures from the upper far reaches of the atmosphere with your own cellphone.. And never mind the curvature of the Earth that is apparently obvious when you fly in an airplane.. The flat Earther's are equal to the Theists making wild assertions and assumptions without evidence to support their claims.. Hence, they would deny any evidence that proves them wrong for the sake of holding on to their ridiculous fallacies... Your example here show's why numbers don't mean a damn thing, and why you can equally have a few hundred ignorant nutcases as you can have x billion number of ignorant nutcases that will assume truths and then try to enforce them as facts without evidence, validation, or substantiation.

Hence here is the folly of your friends argument for you to show evidence that a GOD doesn't exist.. He knows you can't provide evidence for something that doesn't exist in order to show it doesn't exist.. It's a circular game, and what's worse is that you have the upper hand because the lack of evidence is equally an argument against him and not you.. Hence, he needs to show some evidence since he claims to know of his existence, and if he knows of his existence he ought to be able to provide evidence that can in fact substantiate his claim to which would be irrefutable.

What your friend is doing is refusing to concede (probably even to himself) that he has in fact already lost the argument. You're well past the point in the conversation at which I would have told him he's too self-deluded to be argued with and walked away. You might want to call his bluff and ask him to cite reliable sources to support his claim that you share the burden of proof.

Ok I thought you guys might like to have some fun with this one. He's now saying (and I quote):

QuoteName any time where the minority got to demand from the majority that the majority either prove their case or change their view... Seriously... Name one time.

Quote from: "AtheistBrit"Ok I thought you guys might like to have some fun with this one. He's now saying (and I quote):

QuoteName any time where the minority got to demand from the majority that the majority either prove their case or change their view... Seriously... Name one time.

Here's the problem with this statement: Might doesn't make right, and appeals to majority are illogical.

Just off the top of my head: Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.

They forced the majority and the power to reconsider their abuses of these people by putting themselves in the way to be abused for no good reason. Does your friend support the majority beating and killing people just because they're a minority? If he wants to support this argument then: if the majority thought it was good to kill tall people, your friend will agree with them because hey, it's up to the minority that he'll be killing to prove that killing the minority is wrong.

Quote from: "AtheistBrit"Ok I thought you guys might like to have some fun with this one. He's now saying (and I quote):

QuoteName any time where the minority got to demand from the majority that the majority either prove their case or change their view... Seriously... Name one time.

Jesus?

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "AtheistBrit"Ok I thought you guys might like to have some fun with this one. He's now saying (and I quote):

QuoteName any time where the minority got to demand from the majority that the majority either prove their case or change their view... Seriously... Name one time.

:)

Quote from: "AtheistBrit"Ok I thought you guys might like to have some fun with this one. He's now saying (and I quote):

QuoteName any time where the minority got to demand from the majority that the majority either prove their case or change their view... Seriously... Name one time.

The first thing that pops into my mind is areas of the US, specifically the Southern US, during the civil rights era.  It was certainly a minority belief in the Southern US that racism was wrong and that segregation should be abolished, yet despite the majority of people's best efforts to somehow prove that racism and segregation was acceptable, it was abolished.

At any rate, it seems like your friend is playing the moving the goalposts game, which is a pointless endeavor in my opinion.  Does it really matter if you provide this current example when it seem like he's just going to respond by asking for another example of something slightly different as if it's the same argument?

Quote from: "AtheistBrit"Ok I thought you guys might like to have some fun with this one. He's now saying (and I quote):

QuoteName any time where the minority got to demand from the majority that the majority either prove their case or change their view... Seriously... Name one time.

Google it.  Just because a view is a majority view that doesn't mean it's correct.  Also, like I said previously, if they are wanting to play in the realm of evidence-based inquiry then he must supply the evidence to support his alternative hypothesis.

You can also utilize Sagan's Dragon (http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm) if needed to force him into a position to supply evidence.

"Sagan's Dragon" sounds like the most amazing magic card ever.  =D

Quotepinkocommie wrote:
"Sagan's Dragon" sounds like the most amazing magic card ever. =D

Hell yeah! I'd fetch it with Demonic tutor anytime.

Quote from: "Tank"

Quote from: "AtheistBrit"Ok I thought you guys might like to have some fun with this one. He's now saying (and I quote):

QuoteName any time where the minority got to demand from the majority that the majority either prove their case or change their view... Seriously... Name one time.

Jesus?

At least M L K Jr. and Gandhi existed...*chucklin*

Negative assertions have just as much possibility of faultiness as positive ones. :P  




____________________
spam removed by admin

Quote from: "AtheistBrit"Thanks everyone for the replies so far!

I should have pointed out that he is the one insisting that I'm saying "there is NO god" when I have in fact repeatedly pointed out that I'm simply stating "there is no evidence for god, therefore until there is I will assume he doesn't exist, in the same way that unicorns and fairies can be assumed to not exist until evidence arises that they might". He still insists that the burden of proof lies with me simply because I am arguing from a minority point of view. He used the example of a few people saying the world was round when everyone at the time believed the world to be flat; it was the job of the minority round-earthers to prove to the flat-earthers that the world was round, and NOT the job of the flat-earthers to demonstrate that the world was flat, because most people at the time believed the world to be round. I'm not smart enough to come up with a good reason why this argument is wrong.

Whenever I'm involved in a discussion that reaches this point, I merely point out that it boils down to a matter of faith, and as I have absolutely no faith, if he wishes to change my mind he'd ought to provide evidence.

If they wish to argue that their position isn't based on faith, then they are obliged to bring the evidence I've requested.

If they agree that it is entirely about faith, then I am free to safely disregard any claims I've ascertained are based on this faith.

Quote from: "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.

You are wrong. Don't try to teach the pigs to sing. It won't work. The burden of proof does not have to be on him, as I always see atheists argue. Logic and its rules are great in formal debates but in real life science pretty much proves that there need be no god for us to have come into existence. We have something rather than nothing because nothing is unstable. Read some physics instead of arguing with fools, you'll get more out of it.