Fair to Challenge Claims?

[JoeyKnothead]

In another thread there is much complaining about atheists challenging theist claims. I find it a bit weird, what with this being a debate site and all, but there we go.

For debate:

Is it fair for atheists to challenge theist claims on this, a debate site?

Is it fair for atheists to challenge theist claims outside of debate?

What are the real and possible ramifications of challenging theist claims?

What are the real and possible ramifications of allowing theist claims to go unchallenged?

[Zzyzx]

.
Dgruber,

Notice that there are some highly respected, intelligent, articulate, educated theist member of this forum who do NOT make claims to KNOW about god (Micatala, Cnorman, Slopeshoulder, Jester, Chaosborders, JustifyOthers and Vanguard come to mind off the top of my head").

Though they may have personal conviction that god exists, they do not CLAIM in debate to know that " but usually state their views with I believe or My religion says. They do not attempt to know it all or to be superior to those who present different convictions (or favor other gods). None seem to regard (or defend) religious literature as being inerrant or infallible or the word of god.

Perhaps their presentation is a matter of debate experience on their part, or intelligence, or tolerance, or any number of things. However, by stating their position as opinion or as clarification of denominational position, they avoid becoming embroiled in defending claims that are without evidentiary support.

Many Christian Crusaders join the forum with an attitude that suggests intent to slay the infidel with proof from the bible (and Pascals Wager level arguments). They tend to make claims willy-nilly, and become defensive, angry and hostile when they are asked to show that they speak truth. Many express upset with the tactic of opponents who DARE to ask that they support what they say with something other than scripture.

I personally have never experienced this type of "debate" outside of internet sites.

What IS your experience / background with debate?

All debate I am familiar with holds to two stances being taken and backup provided for each side.

Are you speaking of formal debate? Competitive debate? College debate? Television debate?

I have read many "asking for evidence" arguments on this site and I have had discussions personally with those arguing against religion/theism/etc in my own life, and I find a common denominator seems to be that the person challenging the claim is often avoiding making any claim specifically as a debate tactic.

What assures you that the person is actually avoiding making a claim specifically as a debate tactic? How, exactly, do you know that about someone else?

Are you saying that you assume it is a debate tactic, that you guess it is, or you KNOW it is? If the latter, how?

As one who characteristically asks for evidence, I assure you that I feel no need for a debate tactic and certainly ask for substantiation (as per Forum Rules) for exactly the reason stated (a request for evidence that the poster writes truth).

My debate tactic (openly declared) is to help supernaturalists demonstrate to readers that they HAVE NO EVIDENCE to support their claims, stories, dogma, promises or threats " and that they can show no reason why their favorite god should be worshiped or obeyed (or even that the god is anything more than the product of human imagination).

They intend to force the one making the claim into a position of uncertainty

If the person making the claim has supporting evidence (other than unverified tales, conjecture, opinion and emotional appeal), there is absolutely no reason for uncertainty. The uncertain people in debate are those who cannot or will not support their claims.

while keeping themselves in a place where nothing needs to be defended.

Those who make claims that they cannot substantiate or defend honorably often complain that others do not make claims (as though that was tactic or perhaps cheating somehow).

This creates an extremely effective argument, I am not doubting that, but it seems to neglect the intent of the debate.

What, exactly, is the intent of debate in your estimation?

While one wants to "win" the debate,

CORRECTION: SOME want to win the debate. Others, me included, have no interest in winning the debate, but rather with presenting ideas for readers to consider. Perhaps those who seek to win would be prudent to consider other motivations for debating.

in this particular situation due to the gravity of what "God exists", vs "God does not exist" means , winning hopefully will take a backseat to truth.

Some consider the matter of god exists vs. god does not exist (or which god) to be a grave matter (and may project their opinion onto others). Others may consider the matter to be of little importance " other than perhaps to counter religious propaganda.

How do you propose that truth be discovered if debate consists of empty, unsupported claims?

Maybe this type of "debate" is brought forth with the right intentions when a new idea is presented, but this idea of god vs. no god has been going on for centuries.

I cannot speak for others, but I do not debate (here or elsewhere) god or no god. My position is that ANY of the thousands of proposed gods may be real. I am open to consider any credible evidence to support ANY of them " (just dont think that tales of visions or comparable evidence will convince me to worship one of the gods being promoted).

However, I am NOT in favor of giving free reign to god proponents to propagandize or proselytize unopposed. Lack of dissenting voices can be interpreted as lack of opposing views. When that happens, theocracy (the worst form of government in my opinion) may arise " or laws may be passed that favor some particular religious beliefs or worship practices.

All the while there are theists claiming a god, and non-theists (grouping all others into this category for the moment) essentially saying there is no proof, no evidence, nothing can be verified, but other than that taking very little if any actual stance on the matter.

Okay. Lets say that in debate someone claims that their favorite god (an obscure one of the thousands available) can cause volcanic eruption. Would YOU ask for evidence?

Would you just accept the claim? Would you declare that the proposed god could not? Would you refuse to debate the person?

When questioned the answer tends to fall back to, one cannot prove that a god does not exist, because nothing can be shown to not exist somewhere or at some time.

Agreed.

While I don't disagree with this statement, I offer that most of you out there have an opinion on the matter as to whether or not there is a god, based on your circumstances but do not offer that as it cannot be substantiated.

Personal OPINIONS are not a matter of debate.

Some debaters are wise enough to NOT offer their personal opinions as a matter for debate. Since they make no claims, they have no burden of proof " and they are not expected to provide alternative claims to those who do otherwise.

Some debaters offer their personal opinions as TRUTH and certainty. They DO, thereby, incur the burden of proving that what they say is true.

Those who think their opinions regarding gods are truthful, accurate and certain might be wise to discuss those opinion with others of like mind (as in Holy Huddle or Christians Only websites) and avoid attempting to DEBATE them on a level playing field with those who do not accept their proclamations.

I for one am curious as to some of those opinions. Maybe that is the place for outside of this sub forum, but still would be interested. Anyone who is willing to share their opinion outside of "provide evidence" would be appreciated.

I am willing to state my OPINION for all to consider. In my OPINION, the thousands of gods worshiped, feared, venerated, and promoted by humans are equally likely or unlikely to exist. I tend to favor unlikely because I have encountered no reason to conclude that any are real " and I find the tales told to be incredible (defined as: too extraordinary and improbable to admit of belief).

I have no personal need for supernatural beliefs or guidance in order to conduct a full and satisfying life spanning many decades. I do not fear death or consider any of the proposed afterlives to be credible. Threats, promises, coercion and intimidation are not effective with me. Emotional appeals do not work beyond $5 level.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 178:

I seem to be misunderstanding much of what dgruber's getting at, and apologize for any appearance of trying to misrepresent dgruber's statements.

Yes it is valid and, of course, fair game. I would hope that the challengers would not use this tactic for the sake of "winning", but rather use it in the search for truth. To date my experience has not always supported that.

I have some difficulty understanding the "winning" angle here, as I consider determination of truth the be the "winning" we all seek. Without challenging claims - regardless of alternates - we really have little way of determining when a claimant speaks truth.

I made no statement about claims that can't be supported. I'm not real sure where this comes from other than perhaps your standard question.

My point being that where folks "require" (as I use the term) that others offer a counterclaim before offering evidence to a challenge, then it puts one in a bit of a pickle. *This OP was spawned by a member saying any challenge, absent an alternate explanation is "diatribe", if that puts us back in perspective.

No not bad at all. I think that is, as you say, honorable. I don't think anyone is at fault. It is simply people with different view points. World would be a pretty dull place if we thought the same way don't you think?

I just don't understand the "requirement" that an alternate viewpoint is required before debate begins. Claimant claims - that's not debate. Challenger challenges - now we have debate. Anything beyond that is a honey biscuit.

Yes we want to debate the truthfulness and accuracy of claims, I am in complete agreement. What I am trying to convey is that often times, from my experience, it is not done in an honorable fashion.
...

What is so dishonorable about such as, "Danged if I know, but go on and show us you* speak truth regarding your claims?" *You in the general sense.

Joey you seem to be honorable and seem to not fit this "situation" (maybe I'm biased since you too are from Georgia), so I would be interested in knowing what you think and what your opinions are as it relates to a god. Forget verifiable evidence. I'm interested in your opinion on the matter. I am not one who will cry for evidence with your opinions.

GO DAWGS!!!

Why not cry for evidence that shows one speaks truth?

At any rate, as a matter of open, honest opinion, I see no reason to conclude a god or gods exist, based on a lifetime of amateur study across a broad spectrum of educational disciplines - but primarily sociology and psychology. I realize the difficulty in trying to defend my "staunch atheism", so try to avoid overt claims in this regard.

I object to the implication that challengers would put winning before truth.
This is nothing more than typical religionist slander against anyone who disagrees.

I am going to chalk this up to misunderstanding because otherwise I would be quite frustrated. I am as open as anyone to new ideas and most that know me would balk at this statement. I meant this statement for all, simply saying that I hope truth is the number 1 priority. "Typical Religionist Slander" is a very powerful choice of words especially when the statement was taken out of context. I would ask that you recant this statement.

Plowed under, with sincere apologies for my misunderstanding, and blamed on someone else, anyone, that is not here to defend themselves.

8<...

First of all I NEVER made "core religious claims," and I never made the assertion they exist. I also am not complaining about "folks asking claimants to show they speak truth". I am trying to ensure that truth is the true intent of these discussions.

Is there any better way to determine the truth than to ask folks to show they speak it?

Why must someone offer an alternate perspective before we can examine the initial perspective?

Would you prefer folks violate forum rules and present an argument they know can't be supported to the level this site's rules require?

I would not prefer that. All rules should be followed as long as the rules are sound (which they seem to be).

I'll be honest with you Joey, it seems that instead of actually addressing my point, you took a standard approach that you associate with all theists and applied the same thoughts and similar verbage. Your constant search for verification of claims seems to extend to those who didnt make a claim as well. I feel that your intent is good, and maybe it is the non-personal of a debate site that creates the misunderstanding.

Plenty fair.

I'm just not understanding the need to have an alternate point presented to determine if an initial point is accurate.

Honest question devoid of nefarious implications:

Is it that some just enjoy the "back and forth", and don't concern themselves as much with whether a given individual claim is true - but that at the end of it all some truth is found?

[dgruber]

Notice that there are some highly respected, intelligent, articulate, educated theist member of this forum who do NOT make claims to KNOW about god (Micatala, Cnorman, Slopeshoulder, Jester, Chaosborders, JustifyOthers and Vanguard come to mind off the top of my head").

I have read many of their posts and agree that they are highly respected and intelligent. I have been especially interested in many of Jester's recent posts. I too, while not claiming the intelligence of those members, will not and have not claimed to KNOW about any gods. One post stands out in my mind, one of yours I might add, prior to you taking a leave for personal reasons, which portrayed a certain interest in the definition of the word "know". You mentioned then that there were certain aspects of the definition of "know" that you did not agree with, and that any person claiming to "know" something would have to satisfy your definition of the word. It took a while for that to soak in, but after thinking about it in depth I have come to agree with your thought process. In any case I hope to not claim to know about something which I think is impossible to KNOW about.

Perhaps their presentation is a matter of debate experience on their part, or intelligence, or tolerance, or any number of things. However, by stating their position as opinion or as clarification of denominational position, they avoid becoming embroiled in defending claims that are without evidentiary support.

Perhaps so. I intend to follow suit to the best of my ability.

What IS your experience / background with debate?

My debate experience is limited to high school and informal personal debate. Certainly I have read, listened to, and watched debates on the internet, tv, and in person, but I certainly do not have any professional experience with debate.

Are you speaking of formal debate? Competitive debate? College debate? Television debate?

I have witnessed, but taken part in very few competitive debates. I am no expert on the subject and have certainly not been on television for debating purposes.

What assures you that the person is actually avoiding making a claim specifically as a debate tactic? How, exactly, do you know that about someone else?

Nothing assures me of this and I do not know that about someone else. Many people exhibit pride over their opinion and over being "right". I have had discussions with theists and non-theists alike who setup an angle in debate as a debate tactic, in some cases seemingly because they do not want to yield to a position.

re you saying that you assume it is a debate tactic, that you guess it is, or you KNOW it is? If the latter, how?

I guess that is it in some situations and in others from direct statements. Those direct statements did not come from this site so I will retract that statement for our purposes. My guesses are simply that, guesses, and are my opinion only.

My debate tactic (openly declared) is to help supernaturalists demonstrate to readers that they HAVE NO EVIDENCE to support their claims, stories, dogma, promises or threats " and that they can show no reason why their favorite god should be worshiped or obeyed (or even that the god is anything more than the product of human imagination).

You appear to do very well. Your arguments are well reasoned and articulated efficiently as well. I have considered many of the statements you have made.

If the person making the claim has supporting evidence (other than unverified tales, conjecture, opinion and emotional appeal), there is absolutely no reason for uncertainty. The uncertain people in debate are those who cannot or will not support their claims.

I agree. If one does not have supporting evidence they should not make a claim. Perhaps I should expand my horizons on more informal debate, but the topic of religion is very difficult to substantiate as you well know and many theists who are utterly convinced of their beliefs are left saying things like, "ummm....i just believe it."

Those who make claims that they cannot substantiate or defend honorably often complain that others do not make claims (as though that was tactic or perhaps cheating somehow).

Maybe they do "complain" that others do not make claims, and maybe they do relay it as a "tactic". Your subtlety's do not go unheard. Cheating is taking it too far Zzyzx and I think you may know that. There is a significant difference between a tactic and cheating, one that I have acknowledged previously in that a tactic is useful in debate. I am interested in finding the truth, and whatever that may be, I am open to it.

What, exactly, is the intent of debate in your estimation?

I hope that the intent of debate is to learn, maybe even be proved wrong, in order for us to get closer to something that can be agreed on as truth. I do not claim to know where we came from, how the universe started, or where it is going or why, but maybe if we can discuss, argue, and learn from each other our collective knowledge can be increased.

CORRECTION: SOME want to win the debate. Others, me included, have no interest in winning the debate, but rather with presenting ideas for readers to consider. Perhaps those who seek to win would be prudent to consider other motivations for debating.

I agree. I retract and concur that SOME want to win debate. I hope to not fall into that category of wanting to win.

Some consider the matter of god exists vs. god does not exist (or which god) to be a grave matter (and may project their opinion onto others). Others may consider the matter to be of little importance " other than perhaps to counter religious propaganda.

How do you propose that truth be discovered if debate consists of empty, unsupported claims?

The matter of whether a god exists is of high importance to me. It will not necessarily change my approach to life but it could tell us quite a bit about the world we live in. What would you, Zzyzx, do if incontrovertible evidence were brought forth that you were created by a god? What would I, dgruber, do if Jesus' bones were found? Again it may not change my approach to life or it may, but it would certainly throw our world into a frenzy.

However, I am NOT in favor of giving free reign to god proponents to propagandize or proselytize unopposed. Lack of dissenting voices can be interpreted as lack of opposing views. When that happens, theocracy (the worst form of government in my opinion) may arise " or laws may be passed that favor some particular religious beliefs or worship practices.

I am in complete agreement with this.

Okay. Lets say that in debate someone claims that their favorite god (an obscure one of the thousands available) can cause volcanic eruption. Would YOU ask for evidence?

Would you just accept the claim? Would you declare that the proposed god could not? Would you refuse to debate the person?

I would most likely challenge them to debate. I would argue that there is no way of showing that their favorite "god" causes eruptions. I might even consider talking about science and the reason behind volcanoes from that perspective. I would, hopefully, not sit back and only ask for evidence.

Joey,

I will address your statements, but its getting a little late and 5:30 am is going to come early.

[tar2]

Zzyzx and Flail,( and JoeyKnotHead of course.)

In an effort to continue the floating of counter beliefs.

I have read the Bible and have read the Koran twice. And I was brought up Presbyterian. I said my prayers as a young person and had a few long talks with God. Took a number of Philosophy and Religion courses in college, and have enjoyed, thoughout my life, talking to people, in person and on talk boards, about their beliefs as to what life was all about. I do a lot of musing about consciousness and truth.

Two of my main findings are that God is a construct and that we all construct one (or more.)

Here is my reasoning. When I consider the universe, vaster than vast, more longlived than all of life on Earth, more detailed than is imaginable, the whole consideration, takes place inside my head. It is "MY" model of the world, that consists of everything I have experienced, everything I have learned, everything I have imagined, everything I have thought about, and everything that others have told me is so. I have internalized the world, it exists in my memory. I have filled in the gaps so as to have a model that I consider to be everything that there is.

Included in my model are a whole host of "unseen other's". I believe scientists phrase the phenomena as "theory of mind". I as a human can imagine my experience existing in other people's head, I can put myself in other people's shoes. And when I talk to other people, I can do so, with reasonable certainty that they are returning the favor, that they have a similar ability to put themselves in my shoes.

But the world consists of more than just other people, there are trees and lakes, and fish and fowl, mammals of all sorts, and bugs and rocks, and air and sun and moon and stars. I can put myself in any of their shoes. Attribute human qualities to them, sometimes as with dolphins and whales, and chimps, they can return the favor. With other things, not so much. But that does not stop me from putting myself in their attire, whatever experience they may be capable of.

So we are all aware of this thing called the universe, and my take is, that we all, in one way or another, put ourselves in its shoes. An Atheist would think it has no way to return the favor. A Theist would think, it absolutely does.

Thing is, I think everybody has their own personal model of the universe which by definition is going to be different than the next person's, by virtue of a different set of experiences and memories. But it is the same universe, we each have a different image of. And I would think we all could agree that its pretty darn big, pretty darn old, has laws by which it goes, has created us, we are of it and in it, have come from it, and will return to it. Whatever that means.

Regards, TAR

[Jester]

Greetings, well wishes, and all that wonderful folderol.

I'm going to attempt a serious restructure/cutback here. We'll see if it works - or if it ends up more like a government cutback.

Okay, first, a point of clarification:

If I may, we are debating whether a challenge must be presented with an alternate explanation. I agree you don't seek to force others to accept your position, but as a matter of debate you implicitly do - keeping in mind caveats and other clarifications you've presented.

Okay, I must have thrown out the wrong caveat somewhere. Let me alter this.
I don't mean at all to claim that a challenge must require an alternate explanation. I agree with you there.
What I claimed (or thought I claimed, or meant to claim...) was that, without a counterclaim (alternative explanation) one isn't presenting anyone with a good reason to reject the original claim.
If I understand your "let the observer decide" position, I think you might agree on that point. I'm not sure (and definitely shouldn't speak for you), but, either way, I do think it's a different statement.

Now, I know we disagree on the matter of whether or not a claim can be judged without comparison to other claims.
So, getting to that:

What I am saying is that the truthfulness of a claim is relatively independent of alternate explanations.

This is the general claim to which I am responding. Reading over everything, I'm starting to feel that you and I are doing a lot of restating our positions, but not really supporting them.
I think I can say with confidence that I understand this, and am going to try to assume that you understand my basic position. Let's get to supporting.

The first thing I'd like to do is to challenge that claim. Assuming that I do understand, is there a reason why I should believe it?
And, so as not to be completely hypocritical, my counterclaim is (not shockingly) that we can't determine whether or not we should accept a claim in a vacuum.

As to why I feel that people should believe that:

When anyone is unable to show they speak truth, it's readily apparent they have failed to show they speak truth.

Of course the failure of a given claim may or may not reflect on the God / Not God issue, but it does eliminate that claim, or it at least tells us that particular person is unable to support that particular claim.

I'd say that last is exactly my trouble. All we have shown is that a particular person is unable to support that particular claim. It tells us nothing of the claim itself, and certainly nothing of similar claims.

All this challenging adds up to determining that JoeMember failed at supporting something doesn't tell us any more than that he personally failed. Too bad for Joe, but inconsequential for determining whether the claim is true or not. Nor were there, in this sense, any clear guidelines of success. I'm not sure how much support even counts as support in this situation - meaning that I'm even less sure that I've learned anything about anything other than Joe not-so-mad skills.

That's why I argue that discussing claims in a vacuum is unproductive. As to why I consider a comparison analysis a better approach:

Evolution can't be shown to be "true" in a vacuum (i.e. without knowing whether or not there is a better explanation out there).

Which is why I can't honorably argue the position.

I don't feel that you need to argue evolution; I tend not to myself. But that doesn't negate the point.
I'm very pleased with those who were willing to say "no, we can't prove that Macro-evolution is true in a vacuum, but there really is nothing that better fits the data". The scientists who have looked at the possibilities, chosen the best one, and done research based on it have done a lot of good for a lot of people that they couldn't have done saying that they weren't going to support this whole unprovable claim.
Frankly, modern science can't exist without the willingness to choose the best fit in this way.

Now, you and I aren't scientists, but the same logic applies to any decision we make. All actions are based on our beliefs, and we have to act (or sit around rotting). If we're going to do any good in the world, considering the best fit for the information available is acutely important.

Of course, that's not to say that you haven't considered. From what I gather, you have made a decision on the matter of God's existence, but simply don't feel that you can defend it in debate:

But life has put us in the position of needing to behave as if the idea is true or as if it is not. Meaning that, consciously or unconsciously, we're making a determination.

I declare my atheism consciously, but the problem comes in asking me to support that notion when I know full well it violates forum rules (which I agree are level, good, etc.).

If you are saying here that you have beliefs that you can't support in debate (and therefore don't claim), fair enough. I think that we all do (though I guess some claim them anyway).
Two other things remain:
First, I don't know that this idea ends with debate. It seems to me that all rational thought, at least any that leads to positive action in our lives, is about seeking the best option according to the data. My issue isn't, to me, an issue over how a debate should go so much as my view on drawing reliable conclusions.
Second, if 'atheism' is defined above in the non-belief sense (as opposed to the belief that God does not exist), then this is not a response to my statement. Whatever one believes about the fairness of the question "does God exist", one is living either as if the answer were "yes" or the answer were "no".
That's not to say that I'm pushing any particular answer here, it simply means that we've all answered that question with our actions. I feel that those actions should be informed by a line of reasoning regarding the question, rather than by an avoidance of it.

This line of reasoning may or may not elicit this sort of response:

With the utmost respect, I will not be confined to considering whether claims are "more likely than not", but will stick closely to determining whether a claim can be shown true.

I know I'm rehashing a bit of the same matter I covered with the science analogy here, but I do feel that I need an explanation of what "shown to be true" means, if not "more likely than not".
In this world of uncertainty (we can't prove anything), I don't feel that there's much of anything about which I can say "that's not just more likely than not; it's been shown to be true".
Is there anything about which you would say that?

Okay, fantasizing for a moment that everything I've been writing here is absolutely true. Even then, this would still be simply a frustrating and unfortunate reality if it means that we must make claims that we can't support - meaning that we can't actually post within the rules.
In light of this, I think we have basically three choices:

1. Organize a rebellion and take the site for ourselves,

2. Have all people who are willing to admit that offering solid support is difficult at best leave (reducing the site to those who are blithely confident that they've got perfect support), or

3. Present an idea being the best fit for the data as support. The idea that support can't be had because things can't be supported on their own has it's roots in the idea that selecting the best fit is not rational. Anyone who thinks that it is (and I'd wager that everyone uses this reasoning every day) is not hindered by the idea of there being no support.
In looking at ideas in a vacuum, support indeed falls to nothing. There's always something wrong with any given idea (nothing's perfect), which is why choosing what to believe has always been about comparing competing ideas.

Okay, this may be my first post ever that is shorter than the one to which it is responding. Feels a little weird, so let me know if I skipped over that earth-shattering point (or just something you wanted to cover). I thought I got everything major in there, though.

Best wishes to you out there.

[Flail]

tar2 wrote:

Zzyzx and Flail,( and JoeyKnotHead of course.)

In an effort to continue the floating of counter beliefs.

I have read the Bible and have read the Koran twice. And I was brought up Presbyterian. I said my prayers as a young person and had a few long talks with God. Took a number of Philosophy and Religion courses in college, and have enjoyed, thoughout my life, talking to people, in person and on talk boards, about their beliefs as to what life was all about.....................

Excellent tar2...remain doubtful...examine and consider everything...remain ever diligent and studious...endeavor not to believe until and unless you are convinced by your own logical analysis rather than that of someone else...be a skeptic and you will be amazed at all you can learn and discover in life..if something requires indoctrination and artificial support to propigate without evidence, reject it at once...that is my advice...and you appear to be off to a excellent start.

[Flail]

Jester wrote in part:

...The first thing I'd like to do is to challenge that claim. Assuming that I do understand, is there a reason why I should believe it?
And, so as not to be completely hypocritical, my counterclaim is (not shockingly) that we can't determine whether or not we should accept a claim in a vacuum.
Of course the failure of a given claim may or may not reflect on the God / Not God issue, but it does eliminate that claim, or it at least tells us that particular person is unable to support that particular claim....

Just so you know, I read, as I typically do, all of your post and find it well reasoned. I comment on the above as an interjection into your debate with JoeyK. My point is that debating the truth of the 'God/No God claim' IS a vacuum without definition and verifiable evidence from which to start. This differentiates,IMO, those particular claims on either side from most every other claim debated. Most other claims in life and in debate that are suspect of definition or evidence are couched as theory or hypothetical or hypothesis in their initial premise are they not? So why not the 'God exists' claims? If God truth claims were couched as hypotheticals we could get on with examining, analyzing and debating the various causes,effects, benefits, harm etc of all the various God beliefs and religions to which those claims relate. Debating truth claims as to the actual existence of 'gods' is as meaningless as debating the existence of 'schnorbs' or 'picanuers' or 'slidsens'.

[Grumpy]

Jester

without a counterclaim (alternative explanation) one isn't presenting anyone with a good reason to reject the original claim.

I think you do not give enough credence to the inherent alternative. If someone makes a positive claim of existence the inherent alternative is that the positive claim is false, not that non-existence must be true. If you say "Unicorns do exist", I am well within the norm to just say "Show us evidence that your claim is true", it is not required that I say "Unicorns do not exist" as that is not a position I would claim or defend(we can never be certain)and I will not be forced to do so. The veracity of any claim is unrelated to the veracity of any other claim unless opposite claims are expressedly stated by the two sides and they are mutually exclusive. And the veracity of any claim can be determined without any other claim being made, each such claim must stand or fall on it's own merits. It is not my intention to convince anyone that god(s) do not exist(even though that is my conviction), it is simply to show that the claims of theists do not have merit/are not true as they are often claimed to be.

The first thing I'd like to do is to challenge that claim. Assuming that I do understand, is there a reason why I should believe it?
And, so as not to be completely hypocritical, my counterclaim is (not shockingly) that we can't determine whether or not we should accept a claim in a vacuum.

What vacuum? If you make a claim we can compare it to what we know of the real world. That data(knowledge)base is a mix of our education and experiences. If your claim violates what is known it is you that must convince me to abandon that knowledge, not vice versa. There is no vacuum(at least for anyone coherent enough to be debating in the first place).

I'd say that last is exactly my trouble. All we have shown is that a particular person is unable to support that particular claim. It tells us nothing of the claim itself, and certainly nothing of similar claims.

So? Simply showing a claim to be unsupported(or the claimant being unable to provide support)is a step in the logic of the debate. Many claims are made in debate, some can be supported, some not. Those that are supported must be addressed by the debaters, those that are not can be dismissed. By sifting through these claims a framework of logic is constructed. If every claim required a positive counterclaim you would never get anywhere. Instead we ask that these claims be supported by the one making the claim and if it cannot be done the claim cannot be further used(honestly)in that debate.

"Show me" is a sufficient demand of those making positive claims, I do not have to commit to any counterclaim which I do not find defensible to reject an unevidenced claim.
Example: If I claim I can bench press 400 pounds is it necessary for you to counterclaim that I can only BP 200? Or do you just say "Show me"? If I can press 300 are we both half right? NO, the positive claim of 400 pounds is not supported, nor is the claim of 200 entirely accurate.

On the other hand, if I claim that I can BP 400 pounds the inherent question would be ":Oh, really?". If I cannot show evidence that I can, indeed, lift 400 pounds the automatic conclusion is that my positive claim is false, even if I do lift 300 pounds, even if I claim I can only do it when no one is watching or that the extra 100 pounds are invisible and only those doing the lifting can see/feel them(and if I would just TRY bench pressing I would see them too*).

Evolution can't be shown to be "true" in a vacuum (i.e. without knowing whether or not there is a better explanation out there).

The evidence has led us to evolution from many other explanations, including hundreds, if not thousands of years of Creationism. None of the earlier explanations could explain the facts anywhere near as well as evolution. What vacuum are you talking about?

And the theistic concept of what is "true" does not apply to anything in the real world. "To the best of our understanding/knowledge" is as good as it gets. By limiting ourselves to this standard we can be confident in what we do know while acknowledging that we can never be certain and we should avoid making positive claims without being able to show the evidence/logic.

Second, if 'atheism' is defined above in the non-belief sense (as opposed to the belief that God does not exist), then this is not a response to my statement. Whatever one believes about the fairness of the question "does God exist", one is living either as if the answer were "yes" or the answer were "no".

I think that we need a new word to describe those who say "God(s) do not exist", maybe "anti-theist" because all atheism means is one is without belief in god(s), anti-theism would be the active opposition to the concept and not just the claims. I can give you many reasons why I do not believe, but I would be able to provide no support for a positive statement about non-existence, nor do I think it is necessary to do so to debate a positive theist claim, for the same reason, it is unsupportable.

As to my convictions, yes, the idea of a imaginary, magical realm full of wondrous creatures is so low on the scale of possibilities that it is well within the limit of what I would call certainly not true. But like Joey, I know better than to make any such claim because the lesson of Newton/Einstein.

Present an idea being the best fit for the data as support. The idea that support can't be had because things can't be supported on their own has it's roots in the idea that selecting the best fit is not rational. Anyone who thinks that it is (and I'd wager that everyone uses this reasoning every day) is not hindered by the idea of there being no support.
In looking at ideas in a vacuum, support indeed falls to nothing. There's always something wrong with any given idea (nothing's perfect), which is why choosing what to believe has always been about comparing competing ideas.

It is a false dichotomy that just because we can never be certain that means we cannot provide support for a claim. Evidence and logic are not light switches and there is no vacuum. Even if evolution were to be totally falsified tomorrow Creationism would not replace it automatically(a point I wish some theists understood). Each and ever theory, claim or statement must stand on it's own evidence and logic regardless if any other is being considered. If you can provide no support, no evidence and logic, your idea need not be considered at all.

Creationism fails not because evolution doesn't but because the evidence and logic are either non-existent or require acceptance of unevidenced concepts, experiences or entities(which Occam says to discard). It also can not account for ALL of the evidence we have of the changes that have occurred over time and much of this evidence must be ignored to avoid cognitive dissonance and doubt.

For centuries the church ran everything and made all decisions. Creationism was taught from childhood on, you accepted or you kept very quiet lest you be burnt like Bruno. What did we learn about disease and medicine in all those years? Nothing! And what we thought we knew was so poisoned by superstitious non-sense as to be even deadlier than doing nothing at all! The same goes for almost all the scientific knowledge we have today. Only after these Creationist beliefs were safe to be questioned did scientists begin the work that led to our knowledge and it was that knowledge that showed evolution as the best explanation. A side benefit is the efficacy of our modern medicine. Creationism is a religious belief, not a science.

* An actual theist argument

Grumpy

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 185:

>Y'all do me a favor and if I use "must" or "require" or some such, just consider it as "need" or "a good idea" or something similar<

Greetings, well wishes, and all that wonderful folderol.

I return the serve with well wishes for y'all.

I'm going to attempt a serious restructure/cutback here.

I'm gettin' fired, ain't I?

I don't mean at all to claim that a challenge must require an alternate explanation. I agree with you there.

I use "must" as it relates to "good reason to reject" an initial claim. I'll try to refrain from that as I agree it is a bit too strong for what you suggest.

What I claimed (or thought I claimed, or meant to claim...) was that, without a counterclaim (alternative explanation) one isn't presenting anyone with a good reason to reject the original claim.

Where I would consider the initial claim, I don't so much fret with whether an alternate explanation is better, but whether the intitial claim itself has merit.

Is a traffic light on green? This question can be answered solely by considering the properties of illumination and / or green, and need not bother with the properties of red or yellow.

If I understand your "let the observer decide" position, I think you might agree on that point. I'm not sure (and definitely shouldn't speak for you), but, either way, I do think it's a different statement.

I definitely agree an alternate explanation can assist us all, but don't think it necessary in all (most?) cases.

What I am saying is that the truthfulness of a claim is relatively independent of alternate explanations.

The first thing I'd like to do is to challenge that claim. Assuming that I do understand, is there a reason why I should believe it?
And, so as not to be completely hypocritical, my counterclaim is (not shockingly) that we can't determine whether or not we should accept a claim in a vacuum.

Relatively independent. I don't doubt some claims may be harder to consider in a vacuum than others, but contend many (most?) can. See the above example of a traffic light.

...
Of course the failure of a given claim may or may not reflect on the God / Not God issue, but it does eliminate that claim, or it at least tells us that particular person is unable to support that particular claim.

I'd say that last is exactly my trouble. All we have shown is that a particular person is unable to support that particular claim. It tells us nothing of the claim itself, and certainly nothing of similar claims.

Such is the nature of some claims. I think this is especially in place when we consider claims based in logic or reason in the absence of physical, emperical evidence. Here then I think the need to consider alternates becomes more important, but may or may not be needed to determine the veracity of an initial claim.

>example<
That's why I argue that discussing claims in a vacuum is unproductive. As to why I consider a comparison analysis a better approach:

You've won me there, but I still don't think it applies to all claims, nor need apply to all claims.

I don't feel that you need to argue evolution; I tend not to myself. But that doesn't negate the point.
I'm very pleased with those who were willing to say "no, we can't prove that Macro-evolution is true in a vacuum, but there really is nothing that better fits the data". The scientists who have looked at the possibilities, chosen the best one, and done research based on it have done a lot of good for a lot of people that they couldn't have done saying that they weren't going to support this whole unprovable claim.
Frankly, modern science can't exist without the willingness to choose the best fit in this way.
Now, you and I aren't scientists, but the same logic applies to any decision we make. All actions are based on our beliefs, and we have to act (or sit around rotting). If we're going to do any good in the world, considering the best fit for the information available is acutely important.

Of course, that's not to say that you haven't considered. From what I gather, you have made a decision on the matter of God's existence, but simply don't feel that you can defend it in debate:

This is kina my point. Where I can't honorably defend any alternate explanation, I consider it a derailment of the debate, and not always necessary in considering the merits of the initial claim.

...
My issue isn't, to me, an issue over how a debate should go so much as my view on drawing reliable conclusions.
...

See my example of the traffic light. We can draw a reliable conclusion regarding "is green on", without bothering with the other lights.

Second, if 'atheism' is defined above in the non-belief sense (as opposed to the belief that God does not exist), then this is not a response to my statement. Whatever one believes about the fairness of the question "does God exist", one is living either as if the answer were "yes" or the answer were "no".
That's not to say that I'm pushing any particular answer here, it simply means that we've all answered that question with our actions. I feel that those actions should be informed by a line of reasoning regarding the question, rather than by an avoidance of it.

This is true for my go / no go brethren, but not applicable to those who think, "Well, I see no evidence for God, so I'm gonna live a certain way". Notice here the issue of non-existence (alternate explanation) doesn't come into play.

I know I'm rehashing a bit of the same matter I covered with the science analogy here, but I do feel that I need an explanation of what "shown to be true" means, if not "more likely than not". In this world of uncertainty (we can't prove anything), I don't feel that there's much of anything about which I can say "that's not just more likely than not; it's been shown to be true".
Is there anything about which you would say that?

Is the traffic light on green?

Okay, fantasizing for a moment that everything I've been writing here is absolutely true. Even then, this would still be simply a frustrating and unfortunate reality if it means that we must make claims that we can't support - meaning that we can't actually post within the rules.
...

And we notice there are those folks here, across the a/religious spectrum who don't post what they can't honorably defend.

[tar2]

Grumpy,

I am saddened by the fact that you commend me on a good start. I was born in 1953 just several short years after you. If I am just starting, I best pick up the pace a bit, if I hope to finish.

Regards, TAR