Burden of Proof

[cnorman18]

It seems to be taken for granted around here that in any debate over God's existence, the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim, i.e., the theist. .

There is a God = positive claim; requires proof.

There is NO God = negative claim; no proof required. Onus is on whoever disagrees.

Therefore, whoever initiates the conversation, we are left with the atheist tapping his foot with his hand out, waiting for proof, while the theist shuffles his feet and tries to think of something - a hopeless task, in my opinion.

If a proof of God were possible, I suspect someone would have found it at some point in the last five thousand years or so.

Therefore, all theists are required by logic and rationality to immediately give up their beliefs and become atheists, right? Otherwise they are (choose one) hypocrites, irrational, stupid, dishonest, or all of the above.

Well, not quite.

If no proof of God is possible, then proof becomes irrelevant.

Don't misunderstand; if I wish to convince an atheist that there is a God, proof is still a requirement. It just becomes clearly impossible to offer any. Can't be done.

On the other hand, if proof if impossible, the theist is no longer a hypocrite, irrational, etc. if he or she wishes to retain theistic beliefs. One cannot be expected to produce, not that which does not exist, but that which cannot exist.

(Parenthetically: the fact that proof of God is impossible, whether God actually exists or not, has long been established here. If you doubt that, give an example of proof that is even theoretically possible. Bear in mind that no one here can compel God to do anything, so a proposed proof that begins, "God could..." has neither value nor meaning. By the same token, no one here has access to the mind of God; therefore, any question beginning with "Why hasn't God..." is similarly silly.)

The burden of proof is therefore on whoever wants the other person to change his or her position; and that burden can never be met in either direction.

You want an atheist to become a theist? Present an objective and verifiable proof that there is a God, preferably one, particular, identifiable God. And good luck with that.

You want a theist to become an atheist? Present objective proof that no God could possibly exist, or that the particular God believed in by the theist does not exist.

Is that possible? Truthfully, I haven't given that as much thought; but I doubt it. Again, I suspect that if there existed a definitive disproof of God's existence, someone would have brought it forward over the last five millenia, and we would all long since have become atheists.

Questions for debate:

(1) Is it even theoretically possible to objectively prove the existence of God?

(2) Is it possible to objectively and definitively prove the NONexistence of God?

(3) If God has delegated the responsibility for determining right and wrong, caring for each other and the planet, and establishing peace, justice and mercy to US - what difference does it make?

(4) If the question of God's existence is therefore rendered permanently moot, might it not be worthwhile to begin trying to distinguish the differences between toxic and benign religions, as opposed to arguing over whether or not religion per se is a pernicious falsehood?

[Nameless]

It seems to be taken for granted around here that in any debate over God's existence, the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim, i.e., the theist. .

There is a God = positive claim; requires proof.

There is NO God = negative claim; no proof required. Onus is on whoever disagrees.

They are both 'positive claims'. "There is..." is a positive affirmation (of an, in this case, 'absence').

Actually, they are not both positive claims. the direct opposite of a positive claim cannot logically be also a positive claim. And placing a 'not' into a statement generally makes it negative.

I understand your opinion, it is obviously similar to the OPs.
I see it differently as shown. You have not 'refuted the logic and rationality of my offered Perspective merely by gainsaying it.
They are both positive affirmations. That which is positively affirmed happen to be relative opposites.
That in no way refutes the 'positive' affirmations in both quotes.

except that there is none.

Perhaps from your perspective. I think that this 'argument' is absurd.

do you agree that 'there is a God' and 'there is not a God' are opposite statements?

I agree that they are both affirmative arrows pointing in opposite directions.

and there's no such thing as a relative opposite, btw.

Actually, btw, all comparisons are relative, as is everything perceived. Definition is relatives. Descriptions are relatives. Existence is relative/contextual/dualistic.

come up with any two other directly opposite statements that are both positive.

'the wall is red' positive statement
'the wall is not red' negative statement because it is saying that something is not true.

See above.

'there is a God' positive statement
'there is not a God' negative statement because it is saying that something is not true.

I understand how you can see it like that.
I see it differently.

You say that I am presumptuous to say that you dispute the validity of logic,

I misread your statement. Forget it.

then in the very next sentence, say that logic is not universally valid.

So? It isn't. So what?

The demands for, concepts of, proof seem to originate in the isolated artificial tautologies of logic, and the unsound assumptions upon which they are built.

the part in italics is a blatant claim that logic is or contains artificial tautologies-which would make it invalid.

Again I say, so? Ultimately, it is built upon illusion and false premises. Locally and pragmatically, from certain Perspectives, it works to some extent. So?

in addition, you are making comments on me and my method of debating being presumptuous, which is both against the rules, and demonstrably wrong.

I just reread your post and see it differently and what you were meaning. My mistake. I retract the 'presumptuous' claim. Rest easy.
More on the invalidity and non-universality of logic below.

As I said, you are the only other person than twobits whom I have seen dispute the validity of logic,

I just put "validity of logic" in the site search function on this site and got 527 matches. I guess that they must be all you and twobits?

It is the results of the double-slit experiment that 'disputes/refutes' the foundations of your 'logic'. But, this is off-topic, as all of our communication seems to be. I think the topic was burden of proof and we went free-wheeling down tangent road.

I have gone down this road all I care to. We are way past the point of diminishing returns, so, I think that we will have to agree to being differing Perspectives.
Apologies for the 'misunderstanding'.
Peace

[catalyst]

cnorman18,

I would really like to pip in here specifically as to this point.

From an interaction on this thread:

Quote:
....simply because it makes you, and a lot of Jews, more comfortable to think of yourselves as one big happy, interconnected family.

AND


Your reply:Claiming you know the motivation of an entire people? Your mindreading skills are astonishing!

Can you PROVE that assertion? You just made a public claim. By your own standards, you are now obligated to prove it. Let's see you do it.

I can vouch for the original quoters comment here. My father was born a Jew (simply because his mother was) and although he was not a practising Jew (in fact agnostic), when he went to Israel he was accepted AS family (משפחה)- mishpacha. He knew no one. We had no family there, but that did not matter. All that mattered was his birth right allowed him to be accepted in this way. So knowing that I do understand where the original comment made was perhaps coming from. There is obviously a feeling, at least in Israel, of this interconnected family acceptance.

Perhaps it is a different scenario for those who convert to Judaism, rather than just being a Jew through birth right alone?

[Cephus]

Supposed by whom? By me? By you?

By people who are not dead set against evidence existing. You've simply set up a self-fulfilling system whereby you claim no evidence can exist and anyone who suggests evidence, you simply reject it.

The only possible evidence for God is the Bible? Prove that claim, please....

(Deists, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Wiccans...)

I don't believe I have to point this out again...

The word "God" refers to a specific deity, that worshipped by the Christians. It is a proper name. If you wish to refer to a generic deity, then use the lower-case version of the word, "god".

Deists don't worship God, they acknowledge a generally unknown creative entity. Hindus don't worship God, they worship Krishna. Muslims don't worship God, they worship Allah. Sikhs don't worship God, they worship Karta Purakh. Wiccans don't worship God, they worship the Earth Mother or Goddess.

I understand that some people use "God" and "god" interchangably, but it is improper to do so.

My OP said nothing about the God of any specific religion, just God.

By using the word "God", you are indeed referring to the deity of a specific religion, that being Christianity. If you want to be generic, use "god".

God. Not Bible. Simple. Can God be proven, or not?

You'd have to define what you mean by "god" first then. You cannot look for evidence of something that is undefined, but the second you start to define it, you exclude some views of what "god" is. Otherwise, it's like asking people to prove a "Blurg" exists and when they ask you what it is, refusing to tell them.

YOU redefined "proof of God's existence" as "proof of the literal truth of the Bible," which is ludicrous, and now you're calling me dishonest because I want you to answer the original question.

Hardly, you asked for ways in which evidence of the Christian God (and although I know you didn't intend to limit it to the Christian God, that's precisely what you did with your terminology) and I gave examples from the Bible, the Christian book which describes their God, where such evidence might be found. Now granted, none of those examples have actually presented such evidence, you didn't ask if there actually was any evidence for God, only if it was possible that there could ever be such evidence. There can be. There just isn't.

Um - then why are you here?

I am arguing against a position, not an individual. I couldn't care less if anyone changes their mind about the position, I am just pointing out that the position itself is irrational and in many cases, demonstrably false.

You won't say why.

Because it's universally accepted proper debate form. This particular formulation is taken from Competitive Debate—Rules and Techniques by George McCoy Musgrave (1957)

Rule 5a. He who asserts must prove.

This principle applies equally to the two teams. Of course, the affirmative must show that its plan is desirable, which means that it must show that some benefits will result; otherwise it has failed to give reason for adopting the plan, and has lost the debate. The commonly heard statement that "the affirmative has the burden of proof" means that and nothing more.

On the other hand, if the negative wants the judge and audience to accept the idea that there are certain defects which outweigh the plan's good points, then it must assume the burden of proving that such disadvantages actually will result.

If the negative introduces a counterplan, it has the burden of showing how it is better than the affirmative's proposal; the affirmative then has the duty of establishing any alleged objections to the counterplan. In every instance, he who asserts must prove.

Rule 5b. In order to establish an assertion, the team must support it with enough evidence and logic to convince an intelligent but previously uninformed person that it is more reasonable to believe the assertion than to disbelieve it.

The amount of proof required in debating is generally less than that required in law. In law, the jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty in order to convict him; in debating, an assertion is established if it is supported by the weight of evidence and logic, even though there still may be room for doubt.

One further distinction is this: In law the jury may disbelieve evidence, even though its accuracy is not disputed. In debating, the judge is measuring the relative skill of the two teams, not deciding the "bedrock merits" of the matter in question. Therefore he is required to accept as valid all arguments backed with reasonable proof (as defined above) until overthrown by the opposing team.

Can you PROVE that assertion? You just made a public claim. By your own standards, you are now obligated to prove it. Let's see you do it.

It's not that Jews can't define themselves as they see fit, obviously they can, it isn't like anyone can stop them, but when they try to put that definition out for others, it needs to make sense and be logically defensible. Someone could, if they wished, define themselves as a purple kumquat from Mars, but no one is under any obligation to take such a definition seriously.

As such, we need to critically examine the definition of what a "Jew" is, especially in relation to the claimed "community" that has been presented here. As given by Merriam-Webster, the definitions of community are as follows:

1: a unified body of individuals: as a: state , commonwealth b: the people with common interests living in a particular area ; broadly : the area itself <the problems of a large community> c: an interacting population of various kinds of individuals (as species) in a common location d: a group of people with a common characteristic or interest living together within a larger society <a community of retired persons> e: a group linked by a common policy f: a body of persons or nations having a common history or common social, economic, and political interests <the international community> g: a body of persons of common and especially professional interests scattered through a larger society <the academic community>
2: society at large
3 a: joint ownership or participation <community of goods> b: common character : likeness <community of interests> c: social activity : fellowship d: a social state or condition

Now we need to compare the definition given for membership into the supposed Jewish community, which is belonging to any of three different groups of individuals: those of Jewish ethnic heritage, those of the Jewish religion or those who follow the Jewish culture. Because you only need to belong to one of those three groups and those three groups, in and of themselves, do not necessarily have anything to do with each other, the definition given for community simply does not fit the claim made here. There simply is no commonality upon which to claim a community exists. Someone born to a Jewish mother, yet having no interest in the religion nor the culture, is as much a part of this supposed "community" as someone who practices the religion, yet does not share in the Jewish ethnic heritage.

Therefore, we must conclude that, no matter what you may wish to claim, that claim simply isn't defensible via logic.

Like I said; you know nothing about Judaism. You don't even have any idea how ridiculous you have just made yourself with thy statement, do you? Not a clue.

No, you've only demonstrated that the Jews, or at least a certain subset of Jews which you purport to speak for, pay too much attention to tradition. Try again.

What would? Can you answer that?

Yes. Being factually true would make it factually true. Someone who, as I said earlier, claimed to be a purple kumquat from Mars would be making a claim that was not factually true. It doesn't matter how strongly they believe it, it doesn't matter how forcfully they assert it, it simply is not true and their beliefs on the matter are irrelevant to it's truthfulness. Likewise, as I have shown, the claim that has been presented on this board for a universal Jewish community is not logically valid. It doesn't matter how many people believe it or how hard they wish it was true, it simply doesn't make rational sense.

Just for fun, Expert on Judaism, what is YOUR definition of a Jew?

Personally? I don't think you can put just one definition of "Jew", you'd have to have "ethnic Jews", "religious Jews" and "cultural Jews". It's not a single entity you're talking about.

But you're so stuck in a particular mindset, you're just fanatically demanding that what you believe must be true. Not surprisingly, you're wrong.

[Cephus]

Unless his interaction is scientific in nature, and/or any interaction is intentionally explained/interpreted by us in a scientific manner. In this instance, we are, quite specifically, using circular reasoning to “disprove� God’s existence.

Yet I don't think we can find a single religion anywhere that has the concept of a deity that does not interact with our universe in any way. It doesn't matter what book you look at, all of them have this god doing things that would leave physical evidence had they actually happened. After all, if you did actually have a god that never interacted with the universe, what's the point of having the god in the first place?

And while I can understand trying to keep this very generic god-concept outside of any of the established religions, in the end, the god(s) that everyone actually worship, the god(s) that are actually described in these religions, absolutely should have left evidence if they were real. At the end of the day, theists don't throw up their hands and admit that the only defensible deity is one that never interacts with our universe and decide that's the one they're going to follow, after all.

My above comment referred to any characteristics of God, rather than merely the psychological (though those would become relevant at certain points themselves).

On that point I agree with you, it's hard to look for evidence of a god which is completely undefined.

The word “benign� refers more closely to altruism than truth. With regard to your question, however, I completely agree that people of all positions are capable of good. I meant only to make the point that religion has not been established to have a negative effect on human behavior. Rather, this assertion has been shown to be false.

It's certainly not been shown to be false. While it isn't true in all cases, there are certainly plenty of things associated with religion that are negative. The American slavery movement was largely defended by religious Christians, Martin Luther, and centuries of Protestant Germans, were strongly anti-semetic. The women's suffrage movement was fought by Christian men who wanted women to remain subservient, just like the Bible says. The current anti-homosexual backlash is entirely religious. Police in the UK and Europe have started to draw strong correlations between fundamentalist Islam and child pornography. All of these are specific teachings of religion that are causing demonstrably negative effects. It's not true that everyone who follows the religion becomes a problem, but that's true of anything.

Obviously, I completely disagree with the tail end of it, and would expect some kind of support for such an assertion.

Religion expects acceptance of the existence of an unseen, unknown deity without a shred of evidence to support it on faith. Fundamentalism demands adherence to the literalistic word of the holy book, even those sections that are demonstrably false.

I fail to see, however, that the basic nature of religion has been in any way evidenced as contributing to such a mentality. It is for this that I would like evidence.

Religion demands that a different set of critical tools be used for religious claims than one would use for other non-religious claims in their lives. If one can say there is no objective evidence for, say, Bigfoot, and therefore reject it, yet not reject the concept of God on the same basis, then a different rule set is being used. There is even less objective evidence for God than there is for Bigfoot, God doesn't leave giant footprints to make plaster casts of.

Yes, I agree that there is no absolute proof of any one religious idea.

You only deal with proof in alcohol or mathematics, it's a bit silly to try to attribute it to other ideas.

I would temper this with the fact that every belief, religious or not, is unproved. Thus, belief without proof does not equate an uncritical mind.

But we're not dealing with proof, we're dealing with evidence. If someone banged on your door and wanted to tell you about the existence of the great green gigglesnort, you'd demand evidence that this thing actually existed before you'd take it seriously, yet if someone comes to the door to talk about God... you don't demand the same level of evidence. You employ a different standard to religious claims than you do to everything else in your life.

Many rational reasons to believe in religion have been presented on this forum. They may be reason that you personally don’t find compelling, of course. While you are certainly allowed to believe as you do, this doesn’t make those who disagree irrational.

It isn't their disagreement that makes them irrational, it is their acceptance of things without rational, logical cause that does it. There are many claims of rational reasons, yet they almost universally fail credibility. You have people who are attributing events in their lives to God which could just as easily be explained purely naturally. Just about every reason I've ever seen to believe in a god falls to an emotional appeal. People want to believe something, people become emotionally attached to a particular concept, therefore they demand that said concept is factually true when they have no rational reason to make that claim.

I would also disagree with the idea that all religious people apply a different standard toward their religious beliefs than they do to any other aspect of their lives.

Then you'd just need to show me that you apply the same standard of evidence toward God as you do toward, say, Bigfoot as I previously used as an example. Or, perhaps even more telling, you believe in the Christian God, for which there is no objective evidence, while rejecting, say, Krishna, for which there is also no evidence. If you were applying critical standards evenly, you'd simply accept *ALL* gods because there is no better reason to believe in one than the other.

Unless we can find some piece of research supporting the idea that religious people are invariably uncritical, then this statement is unsupported.

I've just pointed out several examples, I can do it until the cows come home if you wish.

[TMMaria]

(1) Is it even theoretically possible to objectively prove the existence of God?

No one can see God without God revealing Himself to that soul. The separation between humanity and God is so far, humanity cannot rise to that level to hold a vision of God on his or her own, (aside: although he/she can wonder if what theists say is true), but only God can stoop down to allow His "little ones" to see Him. Therefore, theists (aside:as in a revealed religion like Christianity where God is revealed to humanity through the Holy SPirit spoken through the mouths of prophets, and through God's Son, Jesus who lived and dwelled amongst men.) being human beings cannot prove the existence of God to atheists. Only God can shine the light of faith to atheists. Theists, however, can live as witness by their very lives in living consciousness of 1) a Supreme Being who has provisional Love for us, who knows even of the hair that falls from our head each day.... 2) of our living soul which is created in the image of our Creator...3) of other spiritual beings, the good and bad, who has power to influence but cannot control our will. The greatest testimony of the theists is their love which endures all, conquers all be it malice, hate, division, and other kind of temptations that hounds the human race to the end of times.

Life in God, knowledge in God, and understanding of God of the theists is a vision of things surpassing what can be explained by humanity knowledge in physical paradigm at this point.

(2) Is it possible to objectively and definitively prove the NONexistence of God??

Atheists can only prove nonexistence of God to atheists by, if we'd take it down the simplest level of all, saying "There is no God." People trust what they see...and if their soul cannot perceive God, that's what they trust. Discussions of physical evidence are but affirmations of what they do not see.

Likewise, theists trust what they see...and when the vision of God is behold in their soul, when the Truth is engraved in their hearts...one cannot blindfold them. One can blindfold their eyes but not the eyes of their souls. Neither pain, suffering, nor persecution to cruel deaths can separate them from the Love of God written in their souls. So we have incredible testimony of a Christian persecutor becoming Paul the Apostle willingly accepted his cruel death to testify of Jesus Christ, Son of God. We had an Augustine, the atheist, who became St. Augustine who defended the Faith with the same ardor and endowed mental faculties that he used when he was an atheist to argue against...We had an atheist who became St. Edith Stein who rather died in Nazi concentration camps as a Catholic Christian.

So if atheists debate to convince Christian theists of the nonexistence of God...it's futile...Rather direct your conversations of what is about the lofty ethic system of Christianity that you disagree, what is it of science, history, literature that the Christian thinks affirms the Christian faith...

For it isn't good presentation of a rational thinker to cater to the lesser habit of generalizations...and I find it amusing that some atheists and theists conclusions alike are so riddled with generalizations.

[Jester]

Unless his interaction is scientific in nature, and/or any interaction is intentionally explained/interpreted by us in a scientific manner. In this instance, we are, quite specifically, using circular reasoning to “disprove� God’s existence.

Yet I don't think we can find a single religion anywhere that has the concept of a deity that does not interact with our universe in any way. It doesn't matter what book you look at, all of them have this god doing things that would leave physical evidence had they actually happened.

So long as this interaction is of a scientific nature, my earlier point is not contradicted.
Moreover, if one understands the subject, it has to be.
Science is the process of explaining events via natural means. That is to say that reverences to God, spirits, or the like is, by definition, not scientific. This is one reason why the intelligent design concept is not a scientific one. On the other hand, it highlights the fact that science as it is currently defined does not evidence God tells us nothing about the probability of God’s existence. All it truly tells us is that science is not the tool to use to go looking for God. While it is true that all religions claim that their deity interacts with the world, this does not address the issue of using science in a cyclical way.

I meant only to make the point that religion has not been established to have a negative effect on human behavior. Rather, this assertion has been shown to be false.

It's certainly not been shown to be false. While it isn't true in all cases, there are certainly plenty of things associated with religion that are negative.

I suppose so, but no more than things associated with religion which could be said to be positive. There are several studies on the subject that have shown that there isn’t much correlation between religion and negative behavior.

The American slavery movement was largely defended by religious Christians,

As was the abolitionist movement. Focusing on one side or the other seems to be overly simplistic.

Martin Luther, and centuries of Protestant Germans, were strongly anti-semetic.

As was Adolf Hitler and the Communist government of the Soviet Union. Given history, racism seems to be a basic human problem, rather than stemming from religion.

The current anti-homosexual backlash is entirely religious.

I have atheist friends who are homophobic. While there are definitely religious homophobes, I don’t see the term entirely as accurate by any understanding.

Police in the UK and Europe have started to draw strong correlations between fundamentalist Islam and child pornography.

I do have some thoughts on the differences between fundamentalism and other forms of religion, but would also like to see the study on this one, as soon as you can get the reference to me.

It's not true that everyone who follows the religion becomes a problem, but that's true of anything.

It’s also true that every group has a few problem cases as well. I don’t see any truth in focusing exclusively on either side. Rather, I’m much more likely to be convinced by studies that show a correlation between religious belief and negative behavior.

Religion expects acceptance of the existence of an unseen, unknown deity without a shred of evidence to support it on faith.

Beyond this not being an accurate description of many forms of religion, all fields of study have basic premises on which they are built (which cannot be proved). This does not in itself equate a lack of critical thinking.

Fundamentalism demands adherence to the literalistic word of the holy book, even those sections that are demonstrably false.

I do not personally defend fundamentalism. I’d love to have someone around to be that voice, but I don’t really think that I’m fit for that job.

I fail to see, however, that the basic nature of religion has been in any way evidenced as contributing to such a mentality. It is for this that I would like evidence.

Religion demands that a different set of critical tools be used for religious claims than one would use for other non-religious claims in their lives.

This is not evidence. I understand the reasoning, but feel that it is flawed. All fields of study have some variation in their tools, this is not inherently problematic. Of course I object to religious claims that contradict logic, and do not defend them. Rather, I defend the idea that a religious viewpoint is completely compatible with rationality and compassion. My aim is not to defend religious people, but the idea that religion, when approached properly, is very beneficial. There have been those who’s lives have established this. Whether or not they represent the whole, or even the majority, is irrelevant.

If one can say there is no objective evidence for, say, Bigfoot, and therefore reject it, yet not reject the concept of God on the same basis, then a different rule set is being used.

�Bigfoot� is a scientific concept (a physical creature). The concept of God is not inherently scientifically testable. Science is defined in such a way as to exclude itself from evidencing God.

You only deal with proof in alcohol or mathematics, it's a bit silly to try to attribute it to other ideas.

Agreed.

But we're not dealing with proof, we're dealing with evidence. If someone banged on your door and wanted to tell you about the existence of the great green gigglesnort, you'd demand evidence that this thing actually existed before you'd take it seriously, yet if someone comes to the door to talk about God... you don't demand the same level of evidence.

Lack of evidence speaks volumes if I have a clear way of testing. If, however, someone were to claim that there is a layer of reality outside the physical universe, I would admit that my inability to see it with a telescope means little. I would admit that I do not know. I personally try to answer the question of God as best I can, but (as much as I love it) leave science out of the matter for the sake of logical consistency.

It isn't their disagreement that makes them irrational, it is their acceptance of things without rational, logical cause that does it.

Not surprisingly, I’m going to point out that this is a simple assertion, which I might make of anyone who offers reasons I personally find to be silly. Neither of us can claim to be the final judge of what is considered to be rational.

You have people who are attributing events in their lives to God which could just as easily be explained purely naturally.

I would assert that some events can have multiple correct explanations.

Just about every reason I've ever seen to believe in a god falls to an emotional appeal.

Then I would assume you have missed a few. I’ve found many (even those I completely reject personally) that are not emotional in nature.

People want to believe something, people become emotionally attached to a particular concept, therefore they demand that said concept is factually true when they have no rational reason to make that claim.

I agree. I don’t, however, feel that this is any more true of religion than it is of atheism.

I would also disagree with the idea that all religious people apply a different standard toward their religious beliefs than they do to any other aspect of their lives.

Then you'd just need to show me that you apply the same standard of evidence toward God as you do toward, say, Bigfoot as I previously used as an example.

Other than that being a poor comparison for reasons listed above, I would add that you do an excellent job of disproving a particular form of religion. I am beginning to feel that my primary disagreement is my belief that such a form does not describe the whole (or the original intent) of religion.

Or, perhaps even more telling, you believe in the Christian God, for which there is no objective evidence, while rejecting, say, Krishna, for which there is also no evidence. If you were applying critical standards evenly, you'd simply accept *ALL* gods because there is no better reason to believe in one than the other.

I’m sure that you understand the logical inconsistency of accepting mutually exclusive religions, but it doesn’t seem that such an understanding has been applied to the above comment. Obviously, I believe there to be evidence in favor of my beliefs greater than that toward any other belief. There is not so much as I would like (there never can be, given how much I’d like), but going with the most probable answer is my habit. And, yes, I apply that in all areas of my life.

Unless we can find some piece of research supporting the idea that religious people are invariably uncritical, then this statement is unsupported.

I've just pointed out several examples, I can do it until the cows come home if you wish.

Please do, but use research in the future. The cases you sited are rooted in speculation regarding historical events. No comparison between religious and non-religious people has yet been addressed in these situations. Simply, we have absolutely no evidence that religious people are more prone to these acts than non-religious without such comparisons. This would be vital to establishing that religion is inherently negative.

[JoeyKnothead]

All it truly tells us is that science is not the tool to use to go looking for God.

This seems to want to escape the proofs of science. God seems to always move away from scientific evidence. Where once God was seen as the cause of all things, science shows more and more that God is doing less and less. To say that science is not the proper tool is to say there is no scientific proof or basis for a given god.

[cnorman18]

Back to square one:

Is there even a theoretically possible proof of the existence of God - not the accuracy of the Bible, not the occurrence of miracles, not life after death, not Good and Evil or any other ancillary and optional religious beliefs, but, as in the OP, the mere existence of God?

Again I ask the question.

If this supposed god has no interaction to speak of and no apparent interest in the universe...if it 'merely exists'...why call it god?

Forget the 'evidence'...why SHOULD god exist? What NEED is there for god?

I don't know that that question is answerable for a believer, because of the obvious assumption which it contains.

Observe:

"Why SHOULD a mountain exist? What NEED is there for mountains?"

Given the turbulent geological history of the planet mountains SHOULD exist. In fact it would be surprising if they didn't. Mountains are needed as part of the hydrological cycle. And they are definately needed by mountaineers.

See - that was easy.

Sure; but was that really the sense in which you used the word about God? "Should" wouldn't be my first choice there - and God is "needed" by theists as much as mountains are needed by mountaineers, and in the same way. No one HAS to climb mountains.

It's quite understandable; the non-theist takes it for granted that God is a human construction, an invention. If that is the case, those questions make perfect sense.

The theist does not understand God in this way. God simply IS, like the mountain, and the questions are non sequiturs. Things that actually exist do not need reasons to do so. They just do.

The mountain is not 'simply is'. There is evidence, as well as a should and a need.

See above.

As for God's disinterest and non-involvement - well, those are interesting questions, particularly in regard to Judaism; but that isn't the subject here.

I beg to differ. If god is not interested and not involved and has no apparent influence why call it god?

Let me clarify.

Jews do not say that there is no life after death as a matter of set doctrine; we say that we don't know.

In the same way, we don't say that God does not or cannot intervene in the world, or that He does not care. We say that we don't know. We say that one may not assume or expect or demand God's intervention; but that is not the same thing as saying there can be none. God is Sovereign, in Jewish belief; He does as He chooses, and answers to no one.

In my own formulation, that means one must live as if there were no God. Responsibility for the world and each other is in our hands, and we are not to take refuge in "GodWILLdoit."

As for "Why call it God" - got another name for it? Other than error, fantasy, delusion, etc.' of course.

The question remains: is it even theoretically possible to prove God's existence?

Not if the claim is that god has no characteristics.

And there lies the rub. For you god may be ineffable, have no characteristics, be uninvolved in the machinations of the universe, just 'be god'. I think my question then is valid. Why call it god?

But I never said that. I said I don't know. There are traditional formulations - eternal, omniscient, etc. - but there is no universal agreement on what those terms mean, and no agreement on whether or not that all apply.

And again; if not "God," what shall we call this "thing" or entity that doesn't mean the same thing or imply its nonexistence?

For many, if not most, theists though god does come with characterisics - with baggage. It has, in big ways, and according to many still does, involve itself in the workings of men.

It is this god that should be put to question - not your ersatz god

Um, "ersatz" is a pejorative that carries the connotation of "fake," substandard" or "phony." From my perspective, those who claim to know the characteristics of God in detail, as well as His thoughts, feelings and intentions worship an "ersatz" God.

Why should it be assumed that the opinion of the majority is correct? Isn't that an argumentum ad populum?

The old "You have to define it before it can be discussed" line is a dodge. A general definition is sufficient here. Is there any way, even in theory, to definitively and positively prove or disprove the existence of gods, supernatural creatures, or anything pertaining to a nonmaterial realm of existence in general?

From what I've seen, many theists are eager to attempt "proofs" of God, but they invariably turn out to be specious; while atheists, while eager to appeal to a general absence of proof as a reason for unbelief (which of course it is), are invariably unable to explain, even theoretically, what even a general proof might possibly look like.

[Zzyzx]

.
Jester,

As always it is a pleasure to respond to your reasoned and civil postings.

Science is the process of explaining events via natural means. That is to say that reverences to God, spirits, or the like is, by definition, not scientific.

I agree that supernaturalism is unscientific – and ask "what is it?"

This is one reason why the intelligent design concept is not a scientific one. On the other hand, it highlights the fact that science as it is currently defined does not evidence God tells us nothing about the probability of God’s existence.

I agree.

However, many people attempt to promote various god theories by making claims. Those CLAIMS can be examined for truth. A claim that dead bodies come back to life after days in the grave IS subject to rational and scientific investigation.

Those who claim that a "resurrection" happened long ago and far away because "goddidit" are asking to be believed. I, for one, am willing to very sincerely consider the claim IF evidence can be provided that 1) a dead body can be shown to have come back to life after days in the grave, and 2) the event can be shown to be caused by a "god", and 3) one particular "god" can be shown to have been involved.

Since none of the three has been demonstrated, those who ask to be believed are asking that they NOT be required to show that they speak truth – that they be believed simply because they say their favorite "god" brought dead bodies back to life (long ago and far away – where it cannot be verified or disproved).

This resolves to "believe on faith alone that my favorite god did what I say – without asking for evidence that I cannot provide".

All it truly tells us is that science is not the tool to use to go looking for God.

What, exactly, IS the tool to use to go looking for gods?

While it is true that all religions claim that their deity interacts with the world, this does not address the issue of using science in a cyclical way.

What constitutes "using science in a cyclical [relating to cycles] way?

There are several studies on the subject that have shown that there isn’t much correlation between religion and negative behavior.

Are there studies that show correlation between religion and POSITIVE behavior?

If not, no claim should be made that religion is correlated to behavior. Correct?

Police in the UK and Europe have started to draw strong correlations between fundamentalist Islam and child pornography.

I do have some thoughts on the differences between fundamentalism and other forms of religion, but would also like to see the study on this one, as soon as you can get the reference to me.

I make no claim to special knowledge of psychology. However, I am aware that psychologists have studied the effects of repression (not necessarily religious repression). A great deal of information is available via Internet search for the term "sexual repression".

I am very interested in learning your thoughts regarding the differences between fundamentalism and other forms of religion. Shall we start a separate thread?

It's not true that everyone who follows the religion becomes a problem, but that's true of anything.

It’s also true that every group has a few problem cases as well. I don’t see any truth in focusing exclusively on either side. Rather, I’m much more likely to be convinced by studies that show a correlation between religious belief and negative behavior.

If studies cannot be cited to show correlation between religious belief and negative behavior OR positive behavior, do we conclude that religious belief cannot or has not been shown to have positive or negative effect on behavior? Do we then NOT claim positive effects upon behavior for religion – or negative effects?

Many theists disagree strongly – preferring to claim positive effects without evidences while denying negative effects (also without evidence). This seems like a form of hypocrisy.

Religion expects acceptance of the existence of an unseen, unknown deity without a shred of evidence to support it on faith.

Beyond this not being an accurate description of many forms of religion, all fields of study have basic premises on which they are built (which cannot be proved). This does not in itself equate a lack of critical thinking.

Do you subscribe to a form of religion that does NOT expect acceptance of unseen, unknown deity? Are you willing to identify that religion by sect name or other identification?

Fundamentalism demands adherence to the literalistic word of the holy book, even those sections that are demonstrably false.

I do not personally defend fundamentalism. I’d love to have someone around to be that voice, but I don’t really think that I’m fit for that job.

Those who attempt to defend fundamentalism / literalism in these debates evidently discover that their position is untenable in the face of strong opposition. Those who have attempted to argue in favor of that brand of religion have met with little or no success in these threads when attempting to promote or defend the bible(s) as being literally true.

Of course I object to religious claims that contradict logic, and do not defend them. Rather, I defend the idea that a religious viewpoint is completely compatible with rationality and compassion.

Do you defend any of the Christian miracle claims from the OT and the NT as being literally true events that happened in the real world as reported?

Do you defend the divinity of Jesus?

My position seems very close to yours in "objecting to religious claims that contradict logic". Can I count on your support in debating religionists who make logic-contradictory claims such as dead bodies coming back to life, snakes and donkeys conversing with humans, the Earth ceasing rotation ("sun stood still") to allow extra daylight for "chosen" people to kill others, etc?

My aim is not to defend religious people, but the idea that religion, when approached properly, is very beneficial.

It is wise to not defend religion or religious people in general. That mistake is often made by apologists who assume the burden.

Can "approached properly" be defined or identified? Whose impression of the proper approach shall apply?

Can it be demonstrated that religion "approached properly" is beneficial?

I suggest that if neither meaningful definition or demonstration can be provided the matter is purely personal opinion.

There have been those who’s lives have established this. Whether or not they represent the whole, or even the majority, is irrelevant.

Can it be shown that the positive behavior of individuals is caused by religion or that positive behavior in general can be correlated with religion?

If one can say there is no objective evidence for, say, Bigfoot, and therefore reject it, yet not reject the concept of God on the same basis, then a different rule set is being used.

�Bigfoot� is a scientific concept (a physical creature). The concept of God is not inherently scientifically testable. Science is defined in such a way as to exclude itself from evidencing God.

However, science IS designed to examine CLAIMS made regarding events in the real world. When religionists make claims that their favorite "god" did something or caused a specific event, that event can be examined scientifically.

For instance, literalists tend to claim that the Earth was flooded "to the tops of mountains" and that all animals (including humans – which they seem to consider as non-animals) were killed by action of their favorite "god".

The implications of a worldwide, year-long flood upon the flora and fauna of the planet are immense. Effects upon the landscape features of the planet would be profound. Origin and disposal of the approximately one billion cubic miles of water required is extremely problematic.

Thus the CLAIM of a worldwide flood a few thousand years ago CAN be scientifically studied and evaluated.

Lack of evidence speaks volumes if I have a clear way of testing.

I agree.

What besides religion and personal emotions do we accept in the real world as true beyond reasonable doubt without a clear way of testing?

If, however, someone were to claim that there is a layer of reality outside the physical universe, I would admit that my inability to see it with a telescope means little. I would admit that I do not know. I personally try to answer the question of God as best I can, but (as much as I love it) leave science out of the matter for the sake of logical consistency.

If someone were to claim that there is a "layer of reality outside the physical universe" that cannot be detected, is it rational to accept or reject the claim when evidence (obviously) cannot be provided?

If that "layer of reality" is proposed to contain "demons of unimaginable evil", do we accept the claim – or do we ask for evidence? When we are told "the demons are there but you can't see them or detect them with the tools available – do we ask "HOW do you know that" – or do we simply believe without knowing what is true? If we decide to believe, do we tell others that we know demons are there?

It isn't their disagreement that makes them irrational, it is their acceptance of things without rational, logical cause that does it.

Not surprisingly, I’m going to point out that this is a simple assertion, which I might make of anyone who offers reasons I personally find to be silly. Neither of us can claim to be the final judge of what is considered to be rational.

Rational is defined as "relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason". If that definition is acceptable in this discussion, we CAN say that theories that openly reject reason are irrational.

You have people who are attributing events in their lives to God which could just as easily be explained purely naturally.

I would assert that some events can have multiple correct explanations.

Multiple CAUSES for any event are possible or likely. However, "correct explanations" implies consideration of existing related causes and effects to arrive at a "correct" explanation. One cannot pick and choose causes for any event and claim a correct explanation.

Just about every reason I've ever seen to believe in a god falls to an emotional appeal.

Then I would assume you have missed a few. I’ve found many (even those I completely reject personally) that are not emotional in nature.

I am very interested in "reasons to believe in a god" that are "not emotional in nature". Can you provide a few examples that you, personally, do not reject?

People want to believe something, people become emotionally attached to a particular concept, therefore they demand that said concept is factually true when they have no rational reason to make that claim.

I agree. I don’t, however, feel that this is any more true of religion than it is of atheism.

What concept is claimed as true in atheism?

Other than that being a poor comparison for reasons listed above, I would add that you do an excellent job of disproving a particular form of religion. I am beginning to feel that my primary disagreement is my belief that such a form does not describe the whole (or the original intent) of religion.

I am very interested in learning more about a belief or form of religion that departs significantly from "the whole (or the original intent) of religion".

Obviously, I believe there to be evidence in favor of my beliefs greater than that toward any other belief. There is not so much as I would like (there never can be, given how much I’d like), but going with the most probable answer is my habit. And, yes, I apply that in all areas of my life.

Would you please describe that evidence? I do not ask this to be argumentative but to gain insight into the meaning of what you say.

Simply, we have absolutely no evidence that religious people are more prone to these acts than non-religious without such comparisons. This would be vital to establishing that religion is inherently negative.

I agree – we have absolutely no evidence that religious people are more prone to [negative] acts than the non-religious. AND I add that we have absolutely no evidence that religious people are more prone to positive acts than non-religious. Therefore, there is NO basis for a religionist claim that religion produces positive effects. Is that correct? Claims in either direction are mere opinion, correct?

If religionists cannot ethically claim positive effects for their belief in life (or "afterlife") without overstating their evidence, what is left as reason to be religious – or to "sell" religion to others?

Is it ethical and honest to proselytizes using claims that are opinion while presenting them without acknowledging their true nature (opinion, conjecture, hearsay, etc)?

Thank you for the interesting an thought provoking discussion. I look forward to your replies.


Zzyzx

[Cephus]

Science is the process of explaining events via natural means.

True, although in this case, all we're looking for is evidence of an interaction between a supposed god-figure and the physical universe. It isn't about explaining how that evidence came to be, at which point science would come into play, simply that the evidence exists. In fact, we may expect that this evidence would not be explainable via the scientific method because, as you point out, it would not have been natural means that caused the events and as such, they may violate known physical laws.

This is one reason why the intelligent design concept is not a scientific one.

Well, the intelligent design concept is an attempt to introduce religion into the science classroom by deception, cloaking it in the guise of science without actually being science.

On the other hand, it highlights the fact that science as it is currently defined does not evidence God tells us nothing about the probability of God’s existence.

Nor does it say anything about the probability of unicorns or pixies. It simply follows the evidence where it leads and if there is no evidence for god(s) or unicorns or pixies, then for rational people, there is no reason to believe such things exist.

All it truly tells us is that science is not the tool to use to go looking for God.

And unfortunately, no other tool has ever been demonstrated to be remotely reliable for discovering things about factual reality.

There are several studies on the subject that have shown that there isn’t much correlation between religion and negative behavior.

Nor do the studies suggest a correlation between religion and positive behavior. Religious people are just people in that regard, no better nor worse than anyone else on the whole when it comes to behavior, but I haven't argued that what makes religion bad is behavioral, it's belief-based. Religion is a mind-killer. That mind-killer sometimes leads to bad actions in a relatively small percentage of cases, certainly when you look at actions like abortion-clinic bombings, it's hard to imagine anything but religious fanaticism being responsible for them, but our secular society has tempered many negative religious beliefs from turning into negative religious actions.

As was Adolf Hitler and the Communist government of the Soviet Union. Given history, racism seems to be a basic human problem, rather than stemming from religion.

Except Hitler was a Christian and was supported by the Catholic Church. When it comes right down to it, religion is a basic human problem as well, everything we do as humans stems from our humanity.

I have atheist friends who are homophobic. While there are definitely religious homophobes, I don’t see the term entirely as accurate by any understanding.

While I know atheists who are uncomfortable around homosexuals, I have yet to see a single athiest defend attacks on the rights of homosexuals for anything but religious reasons. The current war on gay marriage is 100% coming from the religious side.

I do have some thoughts on the differences between fundamentalism and other forms of religion, but would also like to see the study on this one, as soon as you can get the reference to me.

A couple of news stories are here:
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/R ... 49117FCEC3
http://europenews.dk/en/node/15340

Rather, I’m much more likely to be convinced by studies that show a correlation between religious belief and negative behavior.

But you're focusing on behavior and not belief, which is primarily what religion is. It's not that we can't show plenty of cases of negative behavior in religion if that's what you want. I mean, how many cases of pedophile priests do we need to look at? How many cases of religious parents killing their kids by refusing medical treatment do we need? How many Islamic "honor killings", or crazy Christians beating people to death for being "demons"? Heck, there was a recent story out of Russia of a Jehovah's Witness couple who murdered 13 people with axes because "God told them to". You've got nutballs in Kenya murdering supposed witches for casting curses and witchdoctors in Tanzania killing albinos to harvest their genitals for magical cures. If not for religion, none of these things would happen.

However, it's not just actions that are problematic, religion has a long, long track record of anti-intellectualism as well. Their attempts to stifle science goes back centuries, religion has censored scientific works and imprisoned and even killed scientists for daring to say anything that goes against church dogma. Where might mankind be without centuries of anti-science and anti-intellectualism? What breakthroughs might we have made? What diseases might we have wiped out? How many more scientists do churches have to apologize to, centuries after the fact, of course, for tormenting, torturing and murdering? When does it end?

Then you have the current situation where the religious are literally running this country into the ground. The current Dominionist Christian administration is burying us in debt, literally because they believe that the end of the world is coming and we'll never have to worry about paying anything back. These people are dangerous even beyond that because their beliefs specifically state that they're to do whatever they can to facilitate armageddon. Sure, that's what I want for the guy with his finger on the big red button.

Beyond this not being an accurate description of many forms of religion, all fields of study have basic premises on which they are built (which cannot be proved). This does not in itself equate a lack of critical thinking.

No, it actually is a dead-on accurate description because there simply is no objective evidence whatsoever to support the factual existence of *ANY* deity. This is not a basic premise, it's a complete fabrication of the entire position. It's no more valid to invent an unseen and untestable deity out of whole cloth than it is to simply assert the existence of an invisible, intangible, universe-creating gnome living on your left shoulder.

I’d love to have someone around to be that voice, but I don’t really think that I’m fit for that job.

Oh, there are. Granted, they don't actually defend it, they simply proclaim, loudly and obnoxiously, that it's true, but they're around.

All fields of study have some variation in their tools, this is not inherently problematic.

Yes, but no fields of study simply throw all the tools out the window and rely on faith. Religion does.

Of course I object to religious claims that contradict logic, and do not defend them.

Since the vast majority of religious claims do, in fact, contradict logic, you must have very few beliefs.

Rather, I defend the idea that a religious viewpoint is completely compatible with rationality and compassion.

At which point you'd need to back that up. And exactly what does "compatible with compassion" mean? What difference does that make? Some crazy guy running around killing the poor "out of compassion" doesn't make the activity positive.

There have been those who’s lives have established this.

But there are people whose lives have established a positive outcome from virtually every conceivable position so that proves nothing. I'm sure you could have found people who were better off being slaves than being free, that doesn't make slavery a positive thing.

�Bigfoot� is a scientific concept (a physical creature). The concept of God is not inherently scientifically testable. Science is defined in such a way as to exclude itself from evidencing God.

Well, Bigfoot is a fantasy. It could potentially be a physical creature if was real, but there's no reason to think that it is. Likewise with God, even if you want to assume that there's nothing physical to test for, any interaction between this God entity and our universe would leave testable evidence. The fact that there isn't any suggests that either God doesn't interact with our universe at all, or there is no God. In the first case, why bother believing in something for which there is no evidence?

Not surprisingly, I’m going to point out that this is a simple assertion, which I might make of anyone who offers reasons I personally find to be silly. Neither of us can claim to be the final judge of what is considered to be rational.

Main Entry:
1ra·tio·nal Listen to the pronunciation of 1rational
Pronunciation:
\ˈrash-nəl, ˈra-shə-nəl\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English racional, from Anglo-French racionel, from Latin rationalis, from ration-, ratio
Date:
14th century

1 a: having reason or understanding b: relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable <a rational explanation> <rational behavior>

I don't have to be the final judge, I just have to look at the definition of the term.

I would assert that some events can have multiple correct explanations.

Then you would need to back that up.

Then I would assume you have missed a few. I’ve found many (even those I completely reject personally) that are not emotional in nature.

They by all means point them out. Let's see these "non-emotional" reasons for believing in a deity.

Other than that being a poor comparison for reasons listed above, I would add that you do an excellent job of disproving a particular form of religion.

Yet on the whole, it also disproves *ALL* forms of religion, except perhaps the most esoteric or philosophical in nature. Certainly any religion that claims the existence of the supernatural that it has no rational, logical or objective evidence to support, has left the realm of reality and entered into complete fantasy.

I’m sure that you understand the logical inconsistency of accepting mutually exclusive religions, but it doesn’t seem that such an understanding has been applied to the above comment.

We're not necessarily talking about religion here, but about accepting the existence of something for which no evidence exists. If you're going to apply your standards evenly, you have to accept that *ALL* gods exist or *NO* gods exist, you can't just pick and choose the one that appeals to you on an emotional level and demand it's real and all the rest are not. Just using myself as an example, in order to be convinced that any particular religion was factually true, first I'd need to be convinced, through objective evidence, that *ANY* god(s) were factually real, then I'd need to find further evidence that a particular god was actually the one that was real, then I could examine the religion that has sprung up around that particular god. That's how rational people work.