God and his existance

[PsySpi]

God is a concept that echoes through thousands of years and cultures. Millions have experienced his power and believe with their hearts in his majesty. If not because of his existance, why?
Why-
Do almost all cultures recognise a God figure?
Has the idea survived for thousands of years?
Do millions believe?
Have millions gained personal evidence of his existance?

Is this not enough for the "evidence" you seek?

(Please answer in as clear and detailed a way as possible, summarise any science stuff, I'm genuinely interested in the answer)

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Millions have experienced his power and believe with their hearts in his majesty. If not because of his existance, why?
Why-

Have millions gained personal evidence of his existance?

Is this not enough for the "evidence" you seek?






Aren't you taking a bit for granted? :)

What is this evidence we are supposed to be considering?

[PsySpi]

Millions have experienced his power and believe with their hearts in his majesty. If not because of his existance, why?
Why-

Have millions gained personal evidence of his existance?

Is this not enough for the "evidence" you seek?






Aren't you taking a bit for granted? :)

What is this evidence we are supposed to be considering?





The things in my post of course!

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Why-
Do almost all cultures recognise a God figure?
Has the idea survived for thousands of years?
Do millions believe?




Is this the bit you mean? Or the bit I quoted in my last post? Or a bit of both?

[wollery]

Everything you mention as 'proof' is just anecdote, personal accounts and stories, none of it is replicable or testable, and thus fails to meet the criteria necessary to be considered proof.

[PsySpi]

Why-
Do almost all cultures recognise a God figure?
Has the idea survived for thousands of years?
Do millions believe?




Is this the bit you mean? Or the bit I quoted in my last post? Or a bit of both?


All of it-

Why-
Do almost all cultures recognise a God figure?
Has the idea survived for thousands of years?
Do millions believe?
Have millions gained personal evidence of his existance?

[PsySpi]

Everything you mention as 'proof' is just anecdote, personal accounts and stories, none of it is replicable or testable, and thus fails to meet the criteria necessary to be considered proof.


JUST an annecote? Millions of People, millions of "annecdotes" lasting for thousands of years?

Do almost all cultures recognise a God figure?
Has the idea survived for thousands of years?
Do millions believe?

Are these annecdotes?


Have millions gained personal evidence of his existance?

This may alone be annecdotes, but at such volume? When you can have no "scientific evidence" for God, because of his nature?


Do you have any proof God does not exist?

[wollery]

JUST an annecote? Millions of People, millions of "annecdotes" lasting for thousands of years?

How many people have actually claimed to have had a direct personal experience of god? I mean beyond just feeling good during worship.


Do almost all cultures recognise a God figure?
Has the idea survived for thousands of years?
Do millions believe?

Yes, yes, and yes. Still not proof. The original religions worshipped multiple material gods, a god of rain, a god of wind, a god of sunshine, a god of crops, a god of wine, a god of thunder, a god of the woods, a god of the plains, a god for each river.........

Many millions believe because they have been indoctrinated from birth, taught that if they ever stop believing and worshipping they condemn themselves to eternal torture. That's quite an incentive not to stop believing, or at least to not admit to not believing.


Are these annecdotes?

No, they're attempts to explain the physical world. These days we have science to do that. We know why the rain falls, why the wind blows, why the sun shines, what causes thunder and lightning, which is why god has become a more and more abstract concept.


Have millions gained personal evidence of his existance?

Many may have experienced something that they interpret as a direct experience of god. These can be easily explained by well understood psychological phenomena, such as sleep paralysis.


This may alone be annecdotes, but at such volume? When you can have no "scientific evidence" for God, because of his nature?

A million anecdotes are still just anecdotes. None of the points you've raised are valid evidence.


Do you have any proof God does not exist?
No, none is required. God is surplus to requirement in explanations of the origin and state of the Universe. Look up Occam's Razor.


I have a question for you.

If someone claimed to have a personal experience of an invisible pink unicorn that lived at the bottom of his garden would you believe him? If a million people claimed to have had a personal experience of said IPU, would you be convinced of its existence?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Why-
Do almost all cultures recognise a God figure?
Has the idea survived for thousands of years?
Do millions believe?






Is this the bit you mean? Or the bit I quoted in my last post? Or a bit of both?


All of it-

Why-
Do almost all cultures recognise a God figure?
Has the idea survived for thousands of years?
Do millions believe?
Have millions gained personal evidence of his existance?




Thank you. Now ( correct me if I've got this wrong) your questions invite a particular sort of answer: the best explanation for these widely held beliefs is that they are true.

I'll take your first three points ( crosscultural prevalence, longevity and popularity) together. All are bad arguments. We know of false beliefs that have been held by many people in many cultures for many years. Astrology is one: it was a widely held belief in classical antiquity, although the Greeks and Romans probably got it from other cultures where it was already well established. It has had a very long run, which shows little sign of ending. But it's twaddle.

Other examples would be various methods of divination: studying the flight of birds , the behaviour of beasts, the entrails of sacrificed animals, the casting of dice or bones, the content of dreams ,and so on. Again, it's all twaddle.

Your first three points are really just variations of the same idea: if a belief is widely held, it is likely to be true.


Your last point ( personal experience) is a bit different, but it's still wrong.
If we use experience in a strong sense ( so that what is said to be experienced is taken to exist), then saying that people have had experience of a god ( which must therefore exist) is assuming just what is in dispute. That is, it begs the question.

But if we use the word in a weaker sense ( with no implication about the existence of what is said to be experienced), then saying that people have experience of a god doesn't help you. It comes down to saying that they believe in their god. If it were a ground for sharing their belief, some odd consequences would follow. For example, the fact that some people with the DTs experience pink elephants would give us reason to believe in pink elephants. :)

[PsySpi]

JUST an annecote? Millions of People, millions of "annecdotes" lasting for thousands of years?

How many people have actually claimed to have had a direct personal experience of god? I mean beyond just feeling good during worship.

All who truly follow him of course.




Do almost all cultures recognise a God figure?
Has the idea survived for thousands of years?
Do millions believe?

Yes, yes, and yes. Still not proof. The original religions worshipped multiple material gods, a god of rain, a god of wind, a god of sunshine, a god of crops, a god of wine, a god of thunder, a god of the woods, a god of the plains, a god for each river.........

Many millions believe because they have been indoctrinated from birth, taught that if they ever stop believing and worshipping they condemn themselves to eternal torture. That's quite an incentive not to stop believing, or at least to not admit to not believing.


But arn't those all aspects of a God of the universe?
Can you prove they have been indoctrinated? Why would one belief system grow so big anyway?




Are these annecdotes?

No, they're attempts to explain the physical world. These days we have science to do that. We know why the rain falls, why the wind blows, why the sun shines, what causes thunder and lightning, which is why god has become a more and more abstract concept.

But God is an abstract concept!




Have millions gained personal evidence of his existance?

Many may have experienced something that they interpret as a direct experience of god. These can be easily explained by well understood psychological phenomena, such as sleep paralysis.


Proof? Can you say that about ALL of them?




This may alone be annecdotes, but at such volume? When you can have no "scientific evidence" for God, because of his nature?

A million anecdotes are still just anecdotes. None of the points you've raised are valid evidence.


A million annecdotes equates to pretty strong evidence!




Do you have any proof God does not exist?
No, none is required. God is surplus to requirement in explanations of the origin and state of the Universe. Look up Occam's Razor.


What could be simpler than God? After all wasn't Occam a monk?

Why is none required?



I have a question for you.

If someone claimed to have a personal experience of an invisible pink unicorn that lived at the bottom of his garden would you believe him? If a million people claimed to have had a personal experience of said IPU, would you be convinced of its existence?


No, ONE person could be mistaken.
Yes. But an invisible pink unicorn isn't GOD.

[PsySpi]

Why-
Do almost all cultures recognise a God figure?
Has the idea survived for thousands of years?
Do millions believe?






Is this the bit you mean? Or the bit I quoted in my last post? Or a bit of both?


All of it-

Why-
Do almost all cultures recognise a God figure?
Has the idea survived for thousands of years?
Do millions believe?
Have millions gained personal evidence of his existance?




Thank you. Now ( correct me if I've got this wrong) your questions invite a particular sort of answer: the best explanation for these widely held beliefs is that they are true.

I'll take your first three points ( crosscultural prevalence, longevity and popularity) together. All are bad arguments. We know of false beliefs that have been held by many people in many cultures for many years. Astrology is one: it was a widely held belief in classical antiquity, although the Greeks and Romans probably got it from other cultures where it was already well established. It has had a very long run, which shows little sign of ending. But it's twaddle.

Other examples would be various methods of divination: studying the flight of birds , the behaviour of beasts, the entrails of sacrificed animals, the casting of dice or bones, the content of dreams ,and so on. Again, it's all twaddle.

Your first three points are really just variations of the same idea: if a belief is widely held, it is likely to be true.


Your last point ( personal experience) is a bit different, but it's still wrong.
If we use experience in a strong sense ( so that what is said to be experienced is taken to exist), then saying that people have had experience of a god ( which must therefore exist) is assuming just what is in dispute. That is, it begs the question.

But if we use the word in a weaker sense ( with no implication about the existence of what is said to be experienced), then saying that people have experience of a god doesn't help you. It comes down to saying that they believe in their god. If it were a ground for sharing their belief, some odd consequences would follow. For example, the fact that some people with the DTs experience pink elephants would give us reason to believe in pink elephants. :)


How do you know they are twaddle?

It may not be scientific evidence, but its something.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Well, I'm pretty sure they're twaddle because for centuries those who believe in these things have been touting what they regard as evidence , and none of it has stood up to scrutiny. Of course, I'll reconsider if any evidence turns up that can withstand scrutiny.

As for the the suggestion that it's something: what exactly? Anecdote, appeal to popularity, appeal to antiquity?

[PsySpi]

Well, I'm pretty sure they're twaddle because for centuries those who believe in these things have been touting what they regard as evidence , and none of it has stood up to scrutiny. Of course, I'll reconsider if any evidence turns up that can withstand scrutiny.

As for the the suggestion that it's something: what exactly? Anecdote, appeal to popularity, appeal to antiquity?



Practitioners of such things would dissagree.


It is evidence beyond simple annecdote. It is annecdote repeated and confirmed countless times until it is worth more.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Well, I'm pretty sure they're twaddle because for centuries those who believe in these things have been touting what they regard as evidence , and none of it has stood up to scrutiny. Of course, I'll reconsider if any evidence turns up that can withstand scrutiny.

As for the the suggestion that it's something: what exactly? Anecdote, appeal to popularity, appeal to antiquity?



Practitioners of such things would dissagree.


It is evidence beyond simple annecdote. It is annecdote repeated and confirmed countless times until it is worth more.


:) I'd be astonished if they didn't disagree. What of it, if they don't produce decent evidence?

As for the point about anecdotes, it won't do, or even begin to do. Repetition of anecdotes is worth no more than repetition of baseless rumour. Nothing multiplied by umpteen is still nothing. Confirmed anecdotes sound interesting. Are they the sort of anecdotes that are confirmed by evidence?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Hrmmph! I've just noticed that in post 9 I wrote about personal experience in reply to Psyspi's point about personal evidence. It doesn't make much difference to the criticism I made, but it was an oversight on my part.

[Dr B]

God is a concept that echoes through thousands of years and cultures. Millions have experienced his power and believe with their hearts in his majesty. If not because of his existance, why?
Why-
Do almost all cultures recognise a God figure?
Has the idea survived for thousands of years?
Do millions believe?
Have millions gained personal evidence of his existance?

Is this not enough for the "evidence" you seek?


The reason is simple - because all humans have brains that deceive and delude. Brains seek patterns and meaning when there is none. Some brains do this more than others and these people are typically believers (there is evidence for this).

Every culture having a god does not make it real (the fallacy of ad-populum) - every culture has people with brains that distort - and this distortion should be similar - though with some cultural differences.

Next.... :tongue2:

P.S. - there is no evidence for god, and your anecdotes provide none. This of course does not prove he / she does not exist, but then it does not prove that a flying spaghetti monster does not exist either.

[Dr B]

Oddly, I think all religions came through the same process.

Early civilisations looked at the world around them and what was happening (storms / seasons / thunder / lightening / failing crops / changing orientations of constellations / comets / phases of the moon / height of the sun, etc) and they generated what was, for them, the most plausible explanation - that there is some intention behind it all.

They basically gave the universe - a theory of mind!

The rest they say.....is history.

[PsySpi]

Well, I'm pretty sure they're twaddle because for centuries those who believe in these things have been touting what they regard as evidence , and none of it has stood up to scrutiny. Of course, I'll reconsider if any evidence turns up that can withstand scrutiny.

As for the the suggestion that it's something: what exactly? Anecdote, appeal to popularity, appeal to antiquity?



Practitioners of such things would dissagree.


It is evidence beyond simple annecdote. It is annecdote repeated and confirmed countless times until it is worth more.


:) I'd be astonished if they didn't disagree. What of it, if they don't produce decent evidence?

As for the point about anecdotes, it won't do, or even begin to do. Repetition of anecdotes is worth no more than repetition of baseless rumour. Nothing multiplied by umpteen is still nothing. Confirmed anecdotes sound interesting. Are they the sort of anecdotes that are confirmed by evidence?


Annecdote confirmed by volume and independantly matching up. How do you know they are nothing?

[PsySpi]

God is a concept that echoes through thousands of years and cultures. Millions have experienced his power and believe with their hearts in his majesty. If not because of his existance, why?
Why-
Do almost all cultures recognise a God figure?
Has the idea survived for thousands of years?
Do millions believe?
Have millions gained personal evidence of his existance?

Is this not enough for the "evidence" you seek?


The reason is simple - because all humans have brains that deceive and delude. Brains seek patterns and meaning when there is none. Some brains do this more than others and these people are typically believers (there is evidence for this).

Every culture having a god does not make it real (the fallacy of ad-populum) - every culture has people with brains that distort - and this distortion should be similar - though with some cultural differences.

Prove God is a mere malfunction of the brain.


Next.... :tongue2:

P.S. - there is no evidence for god, and your anecdotes provide none. This of course does not prove he / she does not exist, but then it does not prove that a flying spaghetti monster does not exist either.



A flying spaghetti monster, is not God.

[PsySpi]

Oddly, I think all religions came through the same process.

Early civilisations looked at the world around them and what was happening (storms / seasons / thunder / lightening / failing crops / changing orientations of constellations / comets / phases of the moon / height of the sun, etc) and they generated what was, for them, the most plausible explanation - that there is some intention behind it all.

They basically gave the universe - a theory of mind!

The rest they say.....is history.


But God IS the mind of the universe. They looked and found him, and comprehended as best they could.

[wollery]

Annecdote confirmed by volume and independantly matching up. How do you know they are nothing?

Nothing can confirm an anecdote. No matter how many anecdotes you have they are still just anecdotes. What about this is hard to understand?

The IPU argument is just as valid as the god argument.


Prove God is a mere malfunction of the brain.

Well there are several well documented cases of brain malfunctions that result in the same experiences as 'god experiences'. Given that we know for a fact that such malfunctions can cause 'god experiences' it's really up to you to prove that any god experience isn't just a brain malfunction.


A flying spaghetti monster, is not God.

How about Thor, Odin, Zeus, Yaweh, Al'lah, Ra, Hathor, Pan . . . . . . . . . . .


But God IS the mind of the universe. They looked and found him, and comprehended as best they could.Prove that the Universe has a mind.

[PsySpi]

Annecdote confirmed by volume and independantly matching up. How do you know they are nothing?

Nothing can confirm an anecdote. No matter how many anecdotes you have they are still just anecdotes. What about this is hard to understand?

The IPU argument is just as valid as the god argument.

Can you prove that or is it just an annecdote? ;D

An IPU isn't a divine creating force.



A flying spaghetti monster, is not God.

How about Thor, Odin, Zeus, Yaweh, Al'lah, Ra, Hathor, Pan . . . . . . . . . . .



aspects of God.



But God IS the mind of the universe. They looked and found him, and comprehended as best they could.Prove that the Universe has a mind.


Where did the universe come from?

[Jocky]

But God is an abstract concept!

Yes indeed PsySpi - you said it!

Abstract : apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances
Concept : an idea of something formed by mentally combining all its characteristics

[source (http://dictionary.reference.com/) ]

So we can agree that 'God' is a non-specific mental construct. IMO s/he was devised by the human mind to provide explanations to confusing or distressing questions, such as the "Where did the universe come from?" question which you have just asked Wollery.

Now, concepts can be very useful things, but they are not physically real. By that I mean that they cannot exert any measurable influence on reality independent of the minds which construct them.

Here is an important question about the nature of belief: Do you believe that God can only affect reality indirectly, by means of influence exercised over human minds; or can s/he affect the real world directly, independent of human action?

[Mojo]

Everything you mention as 'proof' is just anecdote, personal accounts and stories, none of it is replicable or testable, and thus fails to meet the criteria necessary to be considered proof.


JUST an annecote? Millions of People, millions of "annecdotes" lasting for thousands of years?

Do almost all cultures recognise a God figure?
Has the idea survived for thousands of years?
Do millions believe?

Are these annecdotes?


Have millions gained personal evidence of his existance?

This may alone be annecdotes, but at such volume? When you can have no "scientific evidence" for God, because of his nature?

Ah yes, "mass existing in well distributed people since long", as Kumar would say.

[Dr B]

Prove God is a mere malfunction of the brain.

Shifting the burdon of proof again Psyspi? tut tut. ;D Its not up to me to prove this - its up to you to show why he exists is more reasonable than why he does not.

However, spiritual experiences and hallucinations can be induced in all manner of artificial ways. This strongly suggests the experience resides in your brain. As you have no evidence for your argument whatsoever, the most reasonable conclusion rests with me.



A flying spaghetti monster, is not God.


How do you know? Both are equally evidence as far as I can see >:D

[Jocky]

A flying spaghetti monster, is not God.
How about Thor, Odin, Zeus, Yaweh, Al'lah, Ra, Hathor, Pan . . . . . . . . . . .
aspects of God.

PsySpi: If Thor at al are "aspects of God", then surely the FSM is as well? Or if not, why not?

[PsySpi]

A flying spaghetti monster, is not God.
How about Thor, Odin, Zeus, Yaweh, Al'lah, Ra, Hathor, Pan . . . . . . . . . . .
aspects of God.

PsySpi: If Thor at al are "aspects of God", then surely the FSM is as well? Or if not, why not?


But the FSM is made up, and is not a God.

[PsySpi]

Prove God is a mere malfunction of the brain.

Shifting the burdon of proof again Psyspi? tut tut. ;D Its not up to me to prove this - its up to you to show why he exists is more reasonable than why he does not.

However, spiritual experiences and hallucinations can be induced in all manner of artificial ways. This strongly suggests the experience resides in your brain. As you have no evidence for your argument whatsoever, the most reasonable conclusion rests with me.



A flying spaghetti monster, is not God.


How do you know? Both are equally evidence as far as I can see >:D


Why is the burden of proof on me?

[Jocky]

A flying spaghetti monster, is not God.
How about Thor, Odin, Zeus, Yaweh, Al'lah, Ra, Hathor, Pan . . . . . . . . . . .
aspects of God.

PsySpi: If Thor at al are "aspects of God", then surely the FSM is as well? Or if not, why not?

But the FSM is made up, and is not a God.

It is hard draw a distinction between something which is an "aspect of god" (like Thor) and something which is "made up" (like the FSM).
How would you advise someone to go about telling the difference?

[PsySpi]

A flying spaghetti monster, is not God.
How about Thor, Odin, Zeus, Yaweh, Al'lah, Ra, Hathor, Pan . . . . . . . . . . .
aspects of God.

PsySpi: If Thor at al are "aspects of God", then surely the FSM is as well? Or if not, why not?

But the FSM is made up, and is not a God.

It is hard draw a distinction between something which is an "aspect of god" (like Thor) and something which is "made up" (like the FSM).
How would you advise someone to go about telling the difference?


No one really believes in the FSM. People believed in the others.

[PsySpi]

A flying spaghetti monster, is not God.
How about Thor, Odin, Zeus, Yaweh, Al'lah, Ra, Hathor, Pan . . . . . . . . . . .
aspects of God.

PsySpi: If Thor at al are "aspects of God", then surely the FSM is as well? Or if not, why not?

But the FSM is made up, and is not a God.

It is hard draw a distinction between something which is an "aspect of god" (like Thor) and something which is "made up" (like the FSM).
How would you advise someone to go about telling the difference?


Besides, maybe the FSM is an aspect of God also. Maybe God is all possibilities.

[Jocky]

maybe the FSM is an aspect of God also. Maybe God is all possibilities.

Yes, that is what I was getting at!

If this is so, then God is whatever you want it to be. If you identify with big guys toting hammers, you prefer Thor. If you like bolognese sauce, you prefer the FSM. If you don't trust people to act morally for their own reasons and crave for the threat of eternal damnation to keep everyone in line and prevent anarchy, then you might prefer a judgemental version of the Christian God.

This makes sense if God is a mental construct. However it makes a lot less sense if God is a physical reality. Which brings me back to my earlier question:


Do you believe that God can only affect reality indirectly, by means of influence exercised over human minds; or can s/he affect the real world directly, independent of human action?

[Dr B]

Why is the burden of proof on me?


Because your the one not furnishing your ridiculous claims with reason and evidence. To make an argument one must provide a reason for accepting a conclusion - otherwise its just faith and nonsense. Here we try to discuss reality.

[Dr B]

The point is FSM is an argument that is as supported as that for a God. Now, how do we decide which one is correct?

[PsySpi]

maybe the FSM is an aspect of God also. Maybe God is all possibilities.

Yes, that is what I was getting at!

If this is so, then God is whatever you want it to be. If you identify with big guys toting hammers, you prefer Thor. If you like bolognese sauce, you prefer the FSM. If you don't trust people to act morally for their own reasons and crave for the threat of eternal damnation to keep everyone in line and prevent anarchy, then you might prefer a judgemental version of the Christian God.

This makes sense if God is a mental construct. However it makes a lot less sense if God is a physical reality. Which brings me back to my earlier question:


Do you believe that God can only affect reality indirectly, by means of influence exercised over human minds; or can s/he affect the real world directly, independent of human action?


But thats what God is! An omnipotent divine force, not a physical reality.

God chooses not to interfere, God does spek to peples emotional minds, however her COULD do both.

[PsySpi]

Why is the burden of proof on me?


Because your the one not furnishing your ridiculous claims with reason and evidence. To make an argument one must provide a reason for accepting a conclusion - otherwise its just faith and nonsense. Here we try to discuss reality.




But you dont furnish your counter claims with evidence.

Why should the burden of proof be on me?

[PsySpi]

The point is FSM is an argument that is as supported as that for a God. Now, how do we decide which one is correct?



They are both correct.

[Dr B]

But you dont furnish your counter claims with evidence.

Wrong. I told you your points were irrelevant to the discussion - and that is true. I explained why above. It has nothing to do with it. However, there is evidence that Hitler was into religious symbology and used the techniques in his communications. This is the evidence that he was influenced by religion. It was given above - but you missed it.


Why should the burden of proof be on me?


Because your the one making the claims.....

[PsySpi]

But you dont furnish your counter claims with evidence.

Wrong. I told you your points were irrelevant to the discussion - and that is true. I explained why above. It has nothing to do with it. However, there is evidence that Hitler was into religious symbology and used the techniques in his communications. This is the evidence that he was influenced by religion. It was given above - but you missed it.


Why should the burden of proof be on me?


Because your the one making the claims.....


But WHY should the burden of proof be on the one making the claims?

[Jocky]

An omnipotent divine force, not a physical reality. God chooses not to interfere, God does spek to peples emotional minds, however her COULD do both.

So I deduce from this that you believe God does not intervene in the physical world in any measurable way: instead, s/he just speaks to people's "emotional minds". OK.

[BTW, thank you for responding to the points the points which myself and others are making. I hope you are enjoying the debates, and finding them informative :) ]

So, here is my next question:

When an individual makes a choice about how to act, that decision is predicated on the outcome of a mental process. Presumably, such a decision may sometimes be influenced by the 'voice of God' (for want of a better term), but other times it is not (it arises from the individual's own thoughts).

So, how does one tell the difference between the voice of God and the thoughts of the individual?

[Dr B]

Psyspi - Good question before I answer in full, why should anyone believe you if you do not furnish your claims with reason and evidence?

In other words if you provide no reason - then there is no reason to accept your claim. (I will provide an answer to your legitimate question but am interested in your thoughts here).

J

[Cuddles]

not a physical reality.


Need I say more?

[Dr B]

They are both correct.


Why are they both correct more than they are both incorrect? :(

[Dr B]

PsySpi

OK – before we begin in what I hope will be a fruitful exchange let me say a few things. I don’t really like the term “Burden of proof” and I think your confusion actually illustrates quite nicely what I do not like about it. It sounds ‘confrontational’ and almost like an unassailable concept where the person making the argument has to definitely prove, beyond all doubt, that something is true. In practice this is not always the case. I prefer to think of it as “providing a reasoned case” or “providing justification” (nevertheless, Burden of proof is the common term so I will use it here). Both mean the person making the claim needs to provide a reasoned case (i.e., provide viable reasons) – which in turn establishes the merits and validity of the claim, relative to others. By reasons I mean scientific ones like, data, facts, evidence, logic etc. Conclusions are not reasons, nor are metaphors, statements, anecdotes, beliefs, opinions etc. So these will simply not do in a true scientific argument.

The nature and scope of the reasons will depend upon the nature of the claim. Some claims are clearly easier to support than others. However, a claim that is completely absent of reason is not one which can justify the rational acceptance of it. So before we can evaluate the truth of your conclusions / claims – we need to see your reasons (assuming you have some) 8).

Ok – the burden-of-proof is a concept for scientific discussions. If you are making a claim of provisional truth or anything remotely factual – then this counts as a scientific claim. However, if you are merely talking about your beliefs – then fine, it is a belief – but not a truth. It is a matter of faith and not a matter of fact. However, your posts here and elsewhere suggest that you are making factual claims for God and supernatural beings. Therefore I will apply a scientific rationale to it and we will see how it works.

In science, the burden of proof lies with those making the claims. If this were not the case, just about any claim, would be claimed, to be true. Clearly this is not so. If I want my scientific findings published in a journal – I have to provide evidence for it – so the burden lies with me. Many people make logical fallacies when thinking about the burden of proof. Your claims are not true because they have not been proved false (absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence). This argument would claim that it wins by some form of default because the alternative cannot make a strong enough case against it. Your claim can only be shown to be true if you can furnish it with positive evidence.

Let us say that I claimed I could run the 100m sprint in 4 seconds flat. Would you believe me because you cannot prove otherwise? By your logic, could I not just demand that you prove to me I cannot run this fast. If you failed to do so (as you would), wouldn't your logic state that such a failure provides proof (by default) of my fantastic running ability! This form of argument, though common, is actually nonsense. It is not a scientific argument because it is not based on positive evidence – it is based on the absence of it. The scientific method demands that any claim be furnished with positive evidence. You are not required to prove that I cannot run that fast (indeed, logically that would be impossible). Therefore, the burden of proof lies with the claimant.

Similarly, the theory of evolution is not accepted as fact because there is no evidence for creationism. Evolution has its own merits supporting it (creationism does not). So the burden of proof was on Darwin and colleagues when they made the claims originally.

Now, I do not believe in God. Put more correctly, I think it is so unlikely that God exists we can conclude at this time, with some confidence, that he / she does not exist. Why? Well, the small matter of no positive evidence, no reason and no logic, and far better alternatives for a start. So that is my position and these are my reasons (summarised above). Now, if you want to claim that he / she does indeed exist, and you want to convince others – you need to provide reasons for your position that justify the conclusion. Some phrase it as - the greater burden of proof falls on those whose arguments have the smallest initial probability of being correct. So, the less the initial probability, then the greater the burden of proof.

My take on your arguments are - if God is real and generates real effects – then these should be measurable and quantifiable. They should be measurable by a reliable, valid and objective system – that system is science. Therefore, if God is real (a reality) then we should be able to find some positive evidence that he / she does exist. However, there is no evidence that God exists. This does not prove that he / she does not exist, just that there is no reason to assume that he / she does exist. Scientifically speaking, until such claims are furnished with facts, reason and empirical evidence, then there is no reason believe that God exists. You may continue to believe it but this departs from being an evidence-based argument to being blind faith. If a person cannot support a claim (as with your argument here) then the default position of rejecting it, at least based on the current argument, is totally justified. I hope this helps O0

Please take the time and effort to read it and read around this website as there are some good posts on fallacies and documents on errors in reasoning. Read, digest, understand and enjoy. This will of course take time - but it will be worth it.

O0

[Jocky]

your posts here and elsewhere suggest that you are making factual claims for God and supernatural beings.

To be specific, PsySpi's most recent claim on the subject of God was that s/he is:


An omnipotent divine force, not a physical reality. God chooses not to interfere, God does spek to peples emotional minds

So the factual claim being made is that there exists a supernatural entity who speaks to people minds. My last post was also seeking to elucidate evidence for this claim.

What evidence do you wish to advance, PsySpi?

[sits back and awaits developments]

[Dr B]

Jocky

Indeed - but dont forget all the earlier claims about anecdotal evidence being evidence of fact. It is those factual claims of apparent measurable presence in life and life quality I was referring to.

However, it matters not - the latest factual claim, or the initial ones are both unsupported with evidence..... :ponder:

[PsySpi]

Ok – the burden-of-proof is a concept for scientific discussions. If you are making a claim of provisional truth or anything remotely factual – then this counts as a scientific claim. However, if you are merely talking about your beliefs – then fine, it is a belief – but not a truth. It is a matter of faith and not a matter of fact. However, your posts here and elsewhere suggest that you are making factual claims for God and supernatural beings. Therefore I will apply a scientific rationale to it and we will see how it works.

I agree that a position claimed to be based on more than faith needs backing with evidence.



In science, the burden of proof lies with those making the claims. If this were not the case, just about any claim, would be claimed, to be true. Clearly this is not so. If I want my scientific findings published in a journal – I have to provide evidence for it – so the burden lies with me. Many people make logical fallacies when thinking about the burden of proof. Your claims are not true because they have not been proved false (absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence). This argument would claim that it wins by some form of default because the alternative cannot make a strong enough case against it. Your claim can only be shown to be true if you can furnish it with positive evidence.

While that and the following paragraphs make sense, it does open an interesting problem. If the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, then that the burden of proof lies with the claiment must also be scientifically proved, since it is the positive claim. Can it be?





Now, I do not believe in God. Put more correctly, I think it is so unlikely that God exists we can conclude at this time, with some confidence, that he / she does not exist. Why? Well, the small matter of no positive evidence, no reason and no logic, and far better alternatives for a start. So that is my position and these are my reasons (summarised above). Now, if you want to claim that he / she does indeed exist, and you want to convince others – you need to provide reasons for your position that justify the conclusion. Some phrase it as - the greater burden of proof falls on those whose arguments have the smallest initial probability of being correct. So, the less the initial probability, then the greater the burden of proof.


But what if "God" were defined in a loose enough way to cover most of the alternatives? Not nescessarily the God of Christianity, but a being with enough power to create the universe, being itself uncreated (or coming from something uncreated and unconsious, I suppose) and possessing consiousness?

How do you determine probability of correctness? We have a small area of expanding knowledge of reality, but is this enough to base assumptions about the nature of reality we dont yet know?



My take on your arguments are - if God is real and generates real effects – then these should be measurable and quantifiable. They should be measurable by a reliable, valid and objective system – that system is science.

But God by his nature could, for whatever reason remain hidden from attempts to cientificlly validate him. Gods effects might only be in the places the scientific cannot go (like personal experience, at least on a level above the personal)



Therefore, if God is real (a reality) then we should be able to find some positive evidence that he / she does exist. However, there is no evidence that God exists. This does not prove that he / she does not exist, just that there is no reason to assume that he / she does exist. Scientifically speaking, until such claims are furnished with facts, reason and empirical evidence, then there is no reason believe that God exists. You may continue to believe it but this departs from being an evidence-based argument to being blind faith. If a person cannot support a claim (as with your argument here) then the default position of rejecting it, at least based on the current argument, is totally justified. I hope this helps O0


I understand and can see how not believing in God is a valid option, however there is still two problems:

1 Personal evidence. Personal evidence should in theory be scientific to the person that experiences it, since they can apply scientific principles to it. Its not going to be scientific to anyone else, since the scientific testing is done on a personal level and so are any mistakes. Therefore someone could honestly believe in God based on evidence (but couldn't expect anyone else to)

2 Trends While not evidence, some fallacies, like popularity may be symptoms of truth. As an example, even though the link isn't 100% definite, the true option, could in 90% of cases also be the most popular.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Well, I'm pretty sure they're twaddle because for centuries those who believe in these things have been touting what they regard as evidence , and none of it has stood up to scrutiny. Of course, I'll reconsider if any evidence turns up that can withstand scrutiny.

As for the the suggestion that it's something: what exactly? Anecdote, appeal to popularity, appeal to antiquity?



Practitioners of such things would dissagree.


It is evidence beyond simple annecdote. It is annecdote repeated and confirmed countless times until it is worth more.


:) I'd be astonished if they didn't disagree. What of it, if they don't produce decent evidence?

As for the point about anecdotes, it won't do, or even begin to do. Repetition of anecdotes is worth no more than repetition of baseless rumour. Nothing multiplied by umpteen is still nothing. Confirmed anecdotes sound interesting. Are they the sort of anecdotes that are confirmed by evidence?


Annecdote confirmed by volume and independantly matching up. How do you know they are nothing?


Confirmed by volume? Like urban legends, told and retold about a friend of a friend until everyone knows the story and quite a few believe it, without having the first idea of how it might be tested?

Independently matching anecdotes won't help either, if all you mean is that they all tell the same sort of story. Have you ever listened to people sitting around a fire telling ghost stories?

I see you are still missing the point about burden of proof ( i.e., whose business it is to provide evidence and argument for the original assertion). You have asserted that certain beliefs are true because they are popular, and you have been told that popularity is a poor criterion of truth because certain popular beliefs are false. It is no answer to that criticism to ask "How do you know?" What you need is evidence that they are in fact true. Best of luck! :)

I notice, just before posting, that Dr B has offered some friendly thoughts about the notion of burden of proof. Pease have a look at them.

[Dr B]

I agree that a position claimed to be based on more than faith needs backing with evidence..

Excellent! O0 That is the point. Also, you can now see why, in relation to earlier posts, many of us asked you for your evidence to support your claims. You provided none. If you follow the logic of the burden of proof you will already know where that takes you....


While that and the following paragraphs make sense, it does open an interesting problem. If the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, then that the burden of proof lies with the claimant must also be scientifically proved, since it is the positive claim. Can it be?

I found the end of this comment difficult to follow and I am not sure what you mean. If you mean I have to prove to you why the burden of proof lies with you - I have (see my lengthy post you claim to have read). However, to fully understand why I have made a reasoned case for it you need to understand logic. I admit this is a hard subject but one does not need to be a professional philosopher or scientist to grasp the concept. Knowledge, understanding and argument have structure and form as well as content. Logic refers to all concepts (to some degree) but mainly structure and form. It shows what counts as real knowledge and what counts as fallacious.

Indeed, your argument that I need to prove to you why the burden of proof rests with you is a fallacy in itself. Firstly, I have explained it. Secondly, you are providing a circular argument because you do not seem to understand the reasons and hence justification for it. Now - thats fine, but your misunderstanding does not make my argument false. I could go on...but thats enough for this point I think.



But what if "God" were defined in a loose enough way to cover most of the alternatives? Not necessarily the God of Christianity, but a being with enough power to create the universe, being itself uncreated (or coming from something uncreated and unconsious, I suppose) and possessing consiousness?

There are many problems with this statement. You keep trying to push your concepts beyond the level of conception. God does not need to be defined in any loose way in order to provide evidence that he / she exists. If the effects are real then they are measurable whether you want to refer to him / her as god or a flying spaghetti monster it matters not. It is unscientific to want to define things in loose ways.


How do you determine probability of correctness? We have a small area of expanding knowledge of reality, but is this enough to base assumptions about the nature of reality we dont yet know?

The scientific method, logic and critical thinking helps. We look at plausibility and probability. A body of knowledge guides thinking - but it does not constrain it - if it did there would be no further insight and science would have died out years ago. The method is neutral on the matter of the content of explanation. It does not care.



But God by his nature could, for whatever reason remain hidden from attempts to scientifically validate him. Gods effects might only be in the places the scientific cannot go (like personal experience, at least on a level above the personal)

Evidence? I think I missed it. You keep fudging. You also use the classic technique of trying to keep this 'god' of yours beyond the realms of testability. If I cannot falsify your claims - then they are meaningless - no more right than they are wrong. You do see that dont you? ???



I understand and can see how not believing in God is a valid option, however there is still two problems:

1 Personal evidence. Personal evidence should in theory be scientific to the person that experiences it, since they can apply scientific principles to it. Its not going to be scientific to anyone else, since the scientific testing is done on a personal level and so are any mistakes. Therefore someone could honestly believe in God based on evidence (but couldn't expect anyone else to)

Fallacy. Personal experience is subjective. Science is objective. Anecdotes have their place - but they do not support claims of this nature and are not sound reasons. They are unreliable. Please note that I am sure people genuinely experience things - but I doubt this means the phenomena / claims are genuine (i.e., this does not provide evidence for a god).



2 Trends While not evidence, some fallacies, like popularity may be symptoms of truth. As an example, even though the link isn't 100% definite, the true option, could in 90% of cases also be the most popular.


The point is popularity does not make an idea or claim true. Evolution is popular amongst scientists - but its popularity is not what makes its true. This is what you fail to understand here and you make the same fallacy here. However, on top of this I would again ask you for your evidence?

[PsySpi]

While that and the following paragraphs make sense, it does open an interesting problem. If the burden of proof lies with the one making the claim, then that the burden of proof lies with the claimant must also be scientifically proved, since it is the positive claim. Can it be?

I found the end of this comment difficult to follow and I am not sure what you mean. If you mean I have to prove to you why the burden of proof lies with you - I have (see my lengthy post you claim to have read). However, to fully understand why I have made a reasoned case for it you need to understand logic. I admit this is a hard subject but one does not need to be a professional philosopher or scientist to grasp the concept. Knowledge, understanding and argument have structure and form as well as content. Logic refers to all concepts (to some degree) but mainly structure and form. It shows what counts as real knowledge and what counts as fallacious.

Indeed, your argument that I need to prove to you why the burden of proof rests with you is a fallacy in itself. Firstly, I have explained it. Secondly, you are providing a circular argument because you do not seem to understand the reasons and hence justification for it. Now - thats fine, but your misunderstanding does not make my argument false. I could go on...but thats enough for this point I think.

I'll Try and phrase it as clearly as possible-


Two common statements-

1) "You cannot prove a negative"

2) "The burden of proof is on the claimant"

but- 1 is a negative, so cannot be proved, and 2 requires scientific proof. You can give explanations of why both work, but not the "proof" they themselves demand. The problem is not that they don't make sense, but that they ask to be exempt for their own rules. And if you start making a special case, you weaken them. They are both foundations about the structure and form of argument, claiming they are fallicious or exempt, assumes they are true from the start, which you can't do (since people could then claim the same thing about their own concepts, God, e.t.c)

I'm not saying they are not valid, just that their needs to be some mechanism or explanation that explains why they, and only they are exempt.





I understand and can see how not believing in God is a valid option, however there is still two problems:

1 Personal evidence. Personal evidence should in theory be scientific to the person that experiences it, since they can apply scientific principles to it. Its not going to be scientific to anyone else, since the scientific testing is done on a personal level and so are any mistakes. Therefore someone could honestly believe in God based on evidence (but couldn't expect anyone else to)

Fallacy. Personal experience is subjective. Science is objective. Anecdotes have their place - but they do not support claims of this nature and are not sound reasons. They are unreliable. Please note that I am sure people genuinely experience things - but I doubt this means the phenomena / claims are genuine (i.e., this does not provide evidence for a god).


I am currently thinking about a monkey. This statement cannot be proved but it is true. However I personally have scientific evidence that it is true, by the definition of thought I have irrefutable evidence it occured. No one else however can. What I mean is its possible to have personal experience of something, which is "scientific" Within your mind but not part of science as a whole. It is to you and your worldview proved, because you have access to personal knowledge, but it cannot be considered as part of the collective knowledge known as "science"

Another example- you see an alien, you are fully awake, you walk up to its spacecraft and touch it. You communicate with it. It gives you half of the winning lottery numbers. those numbers come up. Afterwards there are marks in the ground exactly where the spacecraft touched it.
You now have personal "scientific" evidence of the existance of aliens, however this evidence, being personal cannot be tranferred.





2 Trends While not evidence, some fallacies, like popularity may be symptoms of truth. As an example, even though the link isn't 100% definite, the true option, could in 90% of cases also be the most popular.


The point is popularity does not make an idea or claim true. Evolution is popular amongst scientists - but its popularity is not what makes its true. This is what you fail to understand here and you make the same fallacy here. However, on top of this I would again ask you for your evidence?


No, it doesn't make it true, but it could be an indicator of truth. As in the most popular answer is often the correct one, not always or indisputably.

[Cuddles]

I'll Try and phrase it as clearly as possible-


Two common statements-

1) "You cannot prove a negative"

2) "The burden of proof is on the claimant"

but- 1 is a negative, so cannot be proved, and 2 requires scientific proof. You can give explanations of why both work, but not the "proof" they themselves demand. The problem is not that they don't make sense, but that they ask to be exempt for their own rules. And if you start making a special case, you weaken them. They are both foundations about the structure and form of argument, claiming they are fallicious or exempt, assumes they are true from the start, which you can't do (since people could then claim the same thing about their own concepts, God, e.t.c)

I'm not saying they are not valid, just that their needs to be some mechanism or explanation that explains why they, and only they are exempt.

I have to question if you are being deliberately obtuse. These statements are not scientific claims. They are rules that apply to scientific claims. Not only that, they are self-evident rules that must apply to every claim because otherwise no debate or test would ever make sense. Without these rules, as Dr B said, every claim would be true be default, simply because they cannot be proved wrong.


I am currently thinking about a monkey. This statement cannot be proved but it is true. However I personally have scientific evidence that it is true, by the definition of thought I have irrefutable evidence it occured. No one else however can. What I mean is its possible to have personal experience of something, which is "scientific" Within your mind but not part of science as a whole. It is to you and your worldview proved, because you have access to personal knowledge, but it cannot be considered as part of the collective knowledge known as "science"

You don't seem to understand the word "scientific". Yes, you would have evidence in your own head, but it is not scientific, for the simple reason that you can't prove it to anyone else. This is exactly why anecdotes are not counted as evidence. Scientific evidence must be repeatable and obtainable by anyone. If I don't believe you are thinking of a monkey, how will you prove it? If you can't, then you don't have scientific evidence, you just have an unconfirmed anecdote.


Another example- you see an alien, you are fully awake, you walk up to its spacecraft and touch it. You communicate with it. It gives you half of the winning lottery numbers. those numbers come up. Afterwards there are marks in the ground exactly where the spacecraft touched it.
You now have personal "scientific" evidence of the existance of aliens, however this evidence, being personal cannot be tranferred.

How is this personal? You have the marks the ship made and the lottery numbers. Neither of these prove anything, but they are evidence in favour of it. Your memory is personal, but again, this is not evidence. How can you be sure you were awake? How can you be sure it was not a hoax? How can you prove to anyone that you are not lying?


No, it doesn't make it true, but it could be an indicator of truth. As in the most popular answer is often the correct one, not always or indisputably.

Why should it be an indicator of truth? There are millions of beliefs that people have held, and still hold. Almost every one is wrong. Contrary to popular belief, a millions lemmings actually can be wrong, and usually are.

Edit : Fixed messed up quoting

[PsySpi]

I'll Try and phrase it as clearly as possible-


Two common statements-

1) "You cannot prove a negative"

2) "The burden of proof is on the claimant"

but- 1 is a negative, so cannot be proved, and 2 requires scientific proof. You can give explanations of why both work, but not the "proof" they themselves demand. The problem is not that they don't make sense, but that they ask to be exempt for their own rules. And if you start making a special case, you weaken them. They are both foundations about the structure and form of argument, claiming they are fallicious or exempt, assumes they are true from the start, which you can't do (since people could then claim the same thing about their own concepts, God, e.t.c)

I'm not saying they are not valid, just that their needs to be some mechanism or explanation that explains why they, and only they are exempt.

I have to question if you are being deliberately obtuse. These statements are not scientific claims. They are rules that apply to scientific claims. Not only that, they are self-evident rules that must apply to every claim because otherwise no debate or test would ever make sense. Without these rules, as Dr B said, every claim would be true be default, simply because they cannot be proved wrong.



No, I understand perfectly what is being said to me, I'm just having trouble phraising what I mean to avoid misinterpretation.

ok-

If they are not scientific claims, doesn't that mean they are beyond science?
How do you decide which rules apply, without also making an assumption of how things should be from the start?
Many people think God is self evident. Therefore self evidence is not a good answer.
The problem lies not in whether they are applicable or not, but in how they get around there apparent contradiction.

Take this- You cannot prove a negative.

Which is a negative statement, therefore it cannot be proved, so the statement is invalid, by the statements own law it must be proved, which in turn would break the statements law. The question is, why is this statement, and this statement ALONE exempt. Im not doubting that it is, I just want to know why.

[Dr B]

I'll Try and phrase it as clearly as possible-

Two common statements-

1) "You cannot prove a negative"

2) "The burden of proof is on the claimant"

but- 1 is a negative, so cannot be proved, and 2 requires scientific proof. You can give explanations of why both work, but not the "proof" they themselves demand. The problem is not that they don't make sense, but that they ask to be exempt for their own rules. And if you start making a special case, you weaken them. They are both foundations about the structure and form of argument, claiming they are fallicious or exempt, assumes they are true from the start, which you can't do (since people could then claim the same thing about their own concepts, God, e.t.c)

Why are you talking about proving a negative? Who said that? Why is that relevant? It might be common – but not in this debate it isn’t. All the way along this debate I have said you need to furnish claims with positive evidence. You cannot prove a negative, but you can show a positive is a more likely explanation (because of the positive evidence). Why are you introducing irrelevant tangential nonsense into the debate and pretending it was part of the debate? Sorry, but you wont get away with that around here. Stick to the point – if indeed you can.

Number 2 requires evidence, I already explained to you why the term ‘proof’ can be unfortunate. It is a conversational-shorthand; scientists talk of facts and evidence, very rarely do we talk of absolute proof. I can provide you with the one thing you cannot provide us with – evidence!!!! Positive evidence pure and simple – lets stay focused on that. Number 2 requires evidence – are you saying this is a bad thing? I thought you agreed with it in your earlier posts – now you seem to be contradicting yourself (again).



They are both foundations about the structure and form of argument, claiming they are fallicious or exempt, assumes they are true from the start, which you can't do (since people could then claim the same thing about their own concepts, God, e.t.c).
I'm not saying they are not valid, just that their needs to be some mechanism or explanation that explains why they, and only they are exempt.


This is nonsense and you clearly do not understand anything about science, knowledge and understanding. Why does showing an argument to be fallacious assume they are true from the start? Can you explain that to me? If an argument is false and unsound – I never would accept it as true. You are trying to skirt around the issue and you are not answering the question (where is your positive evidence of god?). There are some people who believe that as soon as someone recruits a piece of nonsense as a reason for their argument, then they are not providing an argument and they can be legitimately ignored as an irrelevance. I have some sympathy with that approach – but do not treat people as an irrelevance – just their arguments.




I'm not saying they are not valid, just that their needs to be some mechanism or explanation that explains why they, and only they are exempt.

But there are clear mechanisms – it’s called logic. The fact you are unaware of it does not make it untrue and provides no support for your arguments whatsoever. Learn logic!!!! Learn the principles of critical thinking. What you are clearly unaware of is that nearly every sentence you state – is a fallacy. Of course you could be aware of it and merely trying to stir things up – but it won’t work here. We like to assume everyone is here to learn from each other.




I am currently thinking about a monkey. This statement cannot be proved but it is true. However I personally have scientific evidence that it is true, by the definition of thought I have irrefutable evidence it occured.

Again – you fail to understand that it is not up to me to prove it – its up to you (have you read anything I have written???). However, there are ways of testing for these things within science.



However I personally have scientific evidence that it is true, by the definition of thought I have irrefutable evidence it occured.

No – How does your personal subjective experience lead to objective scientific fact? It does not – you are fudging a distinction here – that personal anecdote leads to objective fact – it does not. Now – at the level of experience something can be true to the experiencer – but that does not make it an external veridical truth as an objective scientific concept. These are different things (interesting discussion in its own right – but nothing to do with your fudging).


What I mean is its possible to have personal experience of something, which is "scientific" Within your mind but not part of science as a whole.

No its not??? Why do you say this?? On what grounds?? What are your reasons? (note –please don’t provide metaphors as evidence).

Personal evidence is not scientific evidence and you seem to be struggling with that distinction – read a book.



Another example- you see an alien, you are fully awake, you walk up to its spacecraft and touch it. You communicate with it. It gives you half of the winning lottery numbers. those numbers come up. Afterwards there are marks in the ground exactly where the spacecraft touched it. You now have personal "scientific" evidence of the existance of aliens, however this evidence, being personal cannot be tranferred.




2 Trends While not evidence, some fallacies, like popularity may be symptoms of truth. As an example, even though the link isn't 100% definite, the true option, could in 90% of cases also be the most popular.


Wrong – you make the same fallacy for the third time in a row – it is no indicator of truth because it is irrelevant to the truth of the argument. Popularity may or may not occur – because it is not reliably and causally associated in any way with truth, it is no index of it. When it co-occurs – fine, but it is no indicator of truth at all. It is a fallacy – ad-populum – please read up. Popularity provides no reason to hold an idea – that’s the point. Only certain things qualify as viable reasons in a scientific argument.

The point is popularity does not make an idea or claim true.

[Dr B]

PsySpi

An argument can be

False and unpopular
False and popular
True and unpopular
True and popular

So, popularity is just as associated with false ideas as it is can be with true ones - thus it is no reliable indcator of truth whatsoever :wnw:

[Dr B]

ok-
If they are not scientific claims, doesn't that mean they are beyond science?

No - certainly not. It means they could be folly, nonsense, and unscientific. That is, we know, to a high degree of probability that they are unlikely to be true.



How do you decide which rules apply, without also making an assumption of how things should be from the start?

Thats an excellent question - one you should consider for yourself in your own arguments. In fact its a question that is so good, ancient philosophers addressed it 2000 years ago, it has been modified and now scientists use this system. It is called logic. It forms part of the scientific method. Two system that make no assumptions over the content of ideas.



Many people think God is self evident. Therefore self evidence is not a good answer.

Yes, thats right. Its actually an oxymoron as well.


The problem lies not in whether they are applicable or not, but in how they get around there apparent contradiction.

There is no contradiction - you just dont know anything about science reason argument and logic. But hey, its ok, we are here to help O0



Take this- You cannot prove a negative.

Take this - but that does not make it true!!!! I can show it is highly unlikely to be true and that the alternatives are far more likely - where now for nonsense ideas?


Which is a negative statement, therefore it cannot be proved, so the statement is invalid, by the statements own law it must be proved, which in turn would break the statements law. The question is, why is this statement, and this statement ALONE exempt. Im not doubting that it is, I just want to know why.

You really need to read up on some logic and science - there are lots of good websites out there and some good books - i can recommend some if you like. The statement is not invalid because you are hiding behind ambiguity in terminology and fudging distinctions - it will all become clear with some further reading. O0 Guess what - you cannot prove a positive either :D but you can provide a provisional truth about it.

[Dr B]

Psyspi

Lets imagine you are sat in a room with a blazing fire in the middle of it. You put your hand into it and quickly pull it out as it gets severely burnt. Lets say you do this all day, everyday, for a year. Ignoring the smell of charred woowoo consider the following statements. Which do you think is more likely, based on your personal experiment, to be true?

1 - It is highly likely I will burn my hand when I put it in fire
2 - It is highly unlikely I will burn my hand when I put it in fire
3 - I have proved my hand never gets burnt in a fire
4 - I have proved my hand will always get burnt in a fire

For me, statement 1 is the only one supported by this evidence. Oddly, statement 4 is not proved.....can you think why? :ponder:

[PsySpi]

I think I'm starting to understand but I think the question I need answered, as clearly as possible is-

What is the evidence that the burden of evidence is on the claimant?

I know you have covered it before, but I'd like it stated simply and clearly, since I'm still having trouble with it.

In effect, when you say "the burden of proof is on the one making the claims", and they respond with "prove it!" How would you answer to someone with a weak grasp of science and logic?

[Cuddles]

I think I'm starting to understand but I think the question I need answered, as clearly as possible is-

What is the evidence that the burden of evidence is on the claimant?

I know you have covered it before, but I'd like it stated simply and clearly, since I'm still having trouble with it.

In effect, when you say "the burden of proof is on the one making the claims", and they respond with "prove it!" How would you answer to someone with a weak grasp of science and logic?


Once again, this statement is not a scientific claim. No science is involved at any point. It is a logical statement that is applied to scientific claims. In this case I called it a self-evident statment because it is completely obvious to anyone, and I really do mean anyone, even if they choose to deny it or ignore it. If you claim something, you must give a reason for that claim or no-one else has any reason to consider it. It really is as simple as that. If you say god exists, you must show why you think that, saying that it is up to me to prove it wrong is just pure nonsense.

It is impossible to simplify it any further - if you say something is true, you must say why you think this.

[Mojo]

I think I'm starting to understand but I think the question I need answered, as clearly as possible is-

What is the evidence that the burden of evidence is on the claimant?

I know you have covered it before, but I'd like it stated simply and clearly, since I'm still having trouble with it.

In effect, when you say "the burden of proof is on the one making the claims", and they respond with "prove it!" How would you answer to someone with a weak grasp of science and logic?


Because if you require claims to be disproven, you end up with absurd results.

For example, say that I were to claim that you had murdered your grandfather. How would you disprove the claim?

[median]

Take this- You cannot prove a negative.

Which is a negative statement, therefore it cannot be proved, so the statement is invalid, by the statements own law it must be proved, which in turn would break the statements law. The question is, why is this statement, and this statement ALONE exempt. Im not doubting that it is, I just want to know why.



PsiSpy

Just as a point of logic, a phrase such as this only becomes a problem if it is-self referential (see Epimenides paradox) i.e. 'You cannot prove this statement'
This is not such a statement. ???

Anyhow, back to the debate O0

[Dr B]

I think I'm starting to understand

Thats great! O0 Your making the effort - it is well worth it and I can assure you that the rest of us all had to learn this stuff at some point. We are not 'know all's' as some people might claim. We are all capable of error and we all try to help each other avoid it - thats how it works. O0 Let me know if you want references etc for resources.


What is the evidence that the burden of evidence is on the claimant?

:scared: It is all in the posts above - please read and digest. Many people have provided many reasons. The reason I think you are struggling slightly may be due to you not understanding how logic works.



In effect, when you say "the burden of proof is on the one making the claims", and they respond with "prove it!" How would you answer to someone with a weak grasp of science and logic?


I could do no better than median, mojo and cuddles here......think about what they have said - it makes sense.

[Dr B]

Psyspi
Here is a link you may find interesting - its on the main website....


http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=Seven_fallacies_of_thought_and_reason.php


or anything from this page

http://www.ukskeptics.com/skepticism.php