DAwkins interviews creationist automaton

[Bill Mattocks]

The burden of proof isn't on the nonbeliever, it's on the believer.

The burden of proof is on the the person attempting to prove it.

If a believer is attempting to prove that God exists, the burden of proof is on the believer.

If a non-believer is attempting to prove that God does not exist, the burden of proof is on the non-believer.

Since the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved, attempting to do either will end in failure.

One can make arguments for and against the existence of God; most of these are logical arguments, rather than arguments based on testable scientific theory; but none of them can result in a proof.

 

[arnisador]

And the absurdity of certain disbelievers as well, I'm afraid. If such a being exists, and can neither be proven or disproven (objectively, anyway), then what's the point of constantly saying,Where's the proof? Where's the proof??

Well, I think the point is a reminder that the man who makes an unsupported statement has said nothing that merits a response. If I say "The moon is made of green cheese" then there's no need to lecture me about the origins of the solar system, observations from telescopes, the moon missions, etc.; you'd be denying things until your dying day. Asking where the proof is isn't quite the same as asking for the proof--it's a rhetorical device expressing that you must supply an argument or evidence for your position if you wish to be treated as more than merely an opinion (in the weak sense of personal preference).

In other words, when I ask a deist where the proof is, it's not because I'm expecting a usable response. It's because I want to indicate that if they're trying to convince me of the rightness of their position they must make more than a simple statement of belief. Put another way, I think I'm beautiful...but don't be looking for me to post pictures so that you can express your opinion on the matter.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Can you prove that the Easter Bunny does not exist? That seems to be the direction a few people are going here... If you can't then you have no more evidence to support your lack of belief then another does to support their belief in the Easter Bunny.

Let's talk about the Easter Bunny for a moment, in the context of proof.

The Easter Bunny is often used because it is commonly assumed to be imaginary. One cannot imagine this being actually existing.

A person who wishes to argue against the existence of a deity, but who recognizes that some concepts are not falsifiable, and therefore cannot be proven or disproven, use this to show that although a deity cannot be proven, neither can the Easter Bunny, and therefore, since the Easter Bunny would be illogical to believe in, so too is the existence of a deity.

It is a reasonable argument on the surface, but it is flawed because it assumes that everything which cannot be proved is equally likely (or in this case, unlikely) to exist.

It is also commonly used as a derogatory argument, belittling the opponent by making a belief in a deity seem as silly as most adults would view a serious belief in the Easter Bunny.

 

[elder999]

Because the believers are constantly in your face with it, shoving it down your throat, trying to get you to believe it as well. Some people just want proof before they'll believe something...

If you're not one of those people, fine. I have some quality real estate down in Florida to sell you. :shrug:

Well, even though I enjoy these discussions, I'm not "in anyone's face with it," though I certainly don't make any secret of it (my beliefs). Fact is, as far as my own religious activities go, I've done more to discourage people from them than actually prostletyze. It also doesn't matter to me what anyone believes or doesn't believe-what kind of person they are is what matters most to me-and that's what my family has taught us for more than 100 years. If you believe in the giant spaghetti monster, and take good care of your kids and don't hurt other people, well, that's fine with me. If you don't believe in anything, and take good care of your kids, and don't hurt other people-that's also fine with me. Truth is, I've known quite a few atheists who love their neighbors as themselves, and quite a few "Christians" who don't

I managed to sell most of my Orlando real estate some time ago, Crippler-the kids are grown, and can pay for their own hotel rooms at Disneyworld, now, and I really don't care much for Florida. What use do I have for Florida real estate....except making money? Unless you mean Disneyworld itself...:lfao:

The burden of proof isn't on the nonbeliever, it's on the believer.

...just sayin'...

Proof, and the burden of it, are personal, and subjective, just as any personal experience of God is: my proof is, well, mine, and of no use to anyone else whatsoever. Most people-believers, that is-probably lack that, to one degree or another, and that's why it's called faith. In fact, one could call my calling my personal experience "prrof" an act of faith. No matter. I have no interest in proving anything, and I especially have no interest in converting anyone.

......just sayin'....:lfao:

 

[elder999]

Through the senses? I'm not sure what you want here. If we can't trust our senses--if we might just be brains in vats--we cannot hope to draw interesting conclusions. Ruling that out both for lack of evidence and for the logical impossibility of proving it false, we gather sense-data and act on that information, in part via logic and in part by trial-and-error (experiment). I'm in line with the thoughts in the beginning of Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy on this one.

And what then, of personal experience-if my senses tell me that God exists, through personal, real and extraordinary if not "supernatural" (hate that word. What's "natural?" :lol experience, then should I not trust it?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

And what then, of personal experience-if my senses tell me that God exists, through personal, real and extraordinary if not "supernatural" (hate that word. What's "natural?" :lol experience, then should I not trust it?

That's key to the argument, thanks.

Clarke wrote that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. A light switch and its effect would be serious magic for a person who had been born and raised in a remote area of the planet, as some few still are.

If such a person saw a light switch and demonstrated its effect by operating the switch themselves, should they believe it is real, or should they believe it is not real?

A person in such a situation might argue from the standpoint of apparent reality - what appears to be real is real. They might also argue from the standpoint of the laws of nature as they understand them - in their universe, that does not happen, so it is not real.

In 19th century England, the Academy of Science stated categorically that rocks do not fall from the sky. People who reported such things were either disbelieved or locked away in bedlam. It would not be wise for an uneducated person of that era to have believed what their own eyes told them happened. Both their understanding of the world as well as the most learned minds of the time told them such things did not happen.

 

[Omar B]

Can you prove that the Easter Bunny does not exist? That seems to be the direction a few people are going here... If you can't then you have no more evidence to support your lack of belief then another does to support their belief in the Easter Bunny.

No, I don't have to prove the Bunny exists, nor do I have to prove anything else. It's the ones who worship the Bunny and see the Bunny as everyone's only hope is the one who has something to prove. I don't need to prove a negative, if it really existed it would be as obvious as oxygen to anyone.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If you believe in the giant spaghetti monster, and take good care of your kids and don't hurt other people, well, that's fine with me.

Please, that's the FLYING Spaghetti Monster. Some of us take our Pastafarian beliefs seriously.

http://www.venganza.org/

 

[Bill Mattocks]

No, I don't have to prove the Bunny exists, nor do I have to prove anything else.

I agree that you do not have to prove the Bunny exists.

It's the ones who worship the Bunny and see the Bunny as everyone's only hope is the one who has something to prove.

The Bunny's believers do not have to prove it exists to themselves. They also do not have to prove it exists to non-believers. However, some few of them may believe that they *can* prove the Bunny exists, and if they do, then yes, the burden of proof is upon them.

I don't need to prove a negative, if it really existed it would be as obvious as oxygen to anyone.

You only have to prove a negative if you intend to argue that the Bunny does not exist. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution, for proof or disproof.

I've never actually seen oxygen, have you? I presume that's in the air I breathe, the scientists tell me so. Frankly, I've never bothered to check it out myself. I won't demand proof, I'm OK with things the way they are. It sure seems real, even if it isn't obvious.

But in any case, the absence of proof is not disproof. That concept seems very difficult to pass along for some reason.

 

[elder999]

In other words, when I ask a deist where the proof is, it's not because I'm expecting a usable response. It's because I want to indicate that if they're trying to convince me of the rightness of their position they must make more than a simple statement of belief. Put another way, I think I'm beautiful...but don't be looking for me to post pictures so that you can express your opinion on the matter.

Inasmuch as I try to convince anyone of the "rightness of my position," it's the "rightness of my position for me." Put another way, if you think you're beautiful, but you look like a French Bulldog, I don't have a problem with that....:lfao:

 

[Archangel M]

Perhaps...but then..who created religion?

I dont see the point of the question. We created law and many people fail to obey those too. However I doubt we would want to live in a lawless society.

 

[elder999]

I dont see the point of the question. We created law and many people fail to obey those too. However I doubt we would want to live in a lawless society.

And where is Thesemindz?? :lol:

 

[Omar B]

I've never actually seen oxygen, have you? I presume that's in the air I breathe, the scientists tell me so. Frankly, I've never bothered to check it out myself.

Skipped Chem class in high school huh?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Skipped Chem class in high school huh?

Yes, I did skip it.

I don't doubt it exists, but you said it was 'obvious'. I can't see it, and I've never personally proven it, so although I accept it, I can't say it is 'obvious'.

Which I guess is the point. What's obvious to you might not be obvious to me - and vice versa. There might be one or two classes I took in high school that you didn't.

 

[celtic_crippler]

So long as we can say that Believer includes Atheists and Theists I would agree. Both believe things on opposite ends of the spectrum, Both have concluded something about God. So, the burden of proof is on the person making the assertion.

No argument from me. I said the burdon of proof is on the believer. Perhaps I should have elaborated more but I thought the context was clear if reading my entire post.... If you are attempting to force me to accept your beliefs, then I require proof. Whether it's the Easter Bunny or proof of aliens. This is not an alien concept, no pun intended. It's the logical process accepted by most rational people with most things.

Can you prove that the Easter Bunny does not exist? That seems to be the direction a few people are going here... If you can't then you have no more evidence to support your lack of belief then another does to support their belief in the Easter Bunny.

After you grew up and left home did you still recieve an Easter basket each April? Well...there ya go.

Those that assert the Christian bible is literal are just as wrong.

Let's talk about the Easter Bunny for a moment, in the context of proof.

The Easter Bunny is often used because it is commonly assumed to be imaginary. One cannot imagine this being actually existing.

A person who wishes to argue against the existence of a deity, but who recognizes that some concepts are not falsifiable, and therefore cannot be proven or disproven, use this to show that although a deity cannot be proven, neither can the Easter Bunny, and therefore, since the Easter Bunny would be illogical to believe in, so too is the existence of a deity.

It is a reasonable argument on the surface, but it is flawed because it assumes that everything which cannot be proved is equally likely (or in this case, unlikely) to exist.

It is also commonly used as a derogatory argument, belittling the opponent by making a belief in a deity seem as silly as most adults would view a serious belief in the Easter Bunny.

Clarify: are you asserting the existance of the Christian god or simply a supreme being?

If it's the Christian god then one can produce evidence in support of "his" non-existance.

Inasmuch as I try to convince anyone of the "rightness of my position," it's the "rightness of my position for me." Put another way, if you think you're beautiful, but you look like a French Bulldog, I don't have a problem with that....:lfao:

That's awesome. LOL ...and true.

I think where the line gets crossed, regardless of whether it's the Christians or the Atheists, is when they try to force others to accept their beliefs.

 

[Omar B]

Yes, I did skip it.
I don't doubt it exists, but you said it was 'obvious'. I can't see it, and I've never personally proven it, so although I accept it, I can't say it is 'obvious'.

I should have used "provable" or "verifiable" then. But either way, the proof is there to be seen if one wishes to look.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Yes, I did skip it.

I don't doubt it exists, but you said it was 'obvious'. I can't see it, and I've never personally proven it, so although I accept it, I can't say it is 'obvious'.

Which I guess is the point. What's obvious to you might not be obvious to me - and vice versa. There might be one or two classes I took in high school that you didn't.

Bill...you can do better than that...

Oxygen is a very poor example. You can freeze it for crying out loud. And it's obvious because you're not suffocating at the moment.

BTW, I wish I could've skipped Chemistry...I hated it!

You must be gettin' gassed. Take a break and come back. LOL

 

[Bill Mattocks]

No argument from me. I said the burdon of proof is on the believer. Perhaps I should have elaborated more but I thought the context was clear if reading my entire post.... If you are attempting to force me to accept your beliefs, then I require proof. Whether it's the Easter Bunny or proof of aliens. This is not an alien concept, no pun intended. It's the logical process accepted by most rational people with most things.

The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion.

What a person believes requires no proof. If they wish others to believe it, others may require proof. Of the existence or non-existence of whatever it is they believe.

After you grew up and left home did you still recieve an Easter basket each April? Well...there ya go.

Evidence is not proof. Are you asserting that you can prove the Easter Bunny does not exist?

Those that assert the Christian bible is literal are just as wrong.

That is a faith. Much like religion. It's a personal belief that you cannot substantiate.

To be fair, anyone who says that the Christian bible is literal and anyone who doesn't believe it is just plain wrong is also engaging in an act of faith, because they cannot substantiate their belief, either.

Clarify: are you asserting the existance of the Christian god or simply a supreme being?

First, I am not asserting the existence of any deity at all. I know full well that such an assertion could never be proven, and if I assert it, the burden is on me to prove it.

Second, it doesn't matter which deity I am referring to. Any theory of the literal existence of a deity is unfalsifiable. It can neither be proven nor disproven. As such, it is beyond the realm of science. This does not make it real, nor does it make it unreal. It makes it unknown.

If it's the Christian god then one can produce evidence in support of "his" non-existance.

I'm listening.

I think where the line gets crossed, regardless of whether it's the Christians or the Atheists, is when they try to force others to accept their beliefs.

I agree with that statement. You seem to often see it as 'forcing others to accept their beliefs' when they point out that their beliefs cannot be disproven, however. I don't really see it that way.

 

[blindsage]

Through the senses? I'm not sure what you want here. If we can't trust our senses--if we might just be brains in vats--we cannot hope to draw interesting conclusions. Ruling that out both for lack of evidence and for the logical impossibility of proving it false, we gather sense-data and act on that information, in part via logic and in part by trial-and-error (experiment). I'm in line with the thoughts in the beginning of Bertrand Russell's The Problems of Philosophy on this one.

Well firstly, science has shown pretty clearly that we can't always trust our senses, but that's really besides my point.

So, if I understand you correctly we gain our information for logical analysis and experiment through personal experience.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bill...you can do better than that...

Oxygen is a very poor example. You can freeze it for crying out loud. And it's obvious because you're not suffocating at the moment.

BTW, I wish I could've skipped Chemistry...I hated it!

You must be gettin' gassed. Take a break and come back. LOL

It goes to the basis of knowledge and faith.

What is a fact? In absolute terms, it is what YOU can prove. One might suspect that it is what can be proven by others, but then I could 'prove' something and tell you I proved it. Would you believe me? What if I were a scientist? What if I were 100 scientists? 1,000?

So the 'fact' of facts is that at some level we take the work of others to be true, even if we have not performed the work to create the proof ourselves. I call that faith, of a certain kind.

You and I (and probably everyone here) believes that oxygen exists and we need it to survive and it can be frozen and so on and so forth.

Please note that I do not dispute that oxygen exists.

However, with the exception of some scientists here, what do we personally know and can prove about oxygen?

I can read about it. So many protons, neutrons and electrons. A certain atomic weight. It has certain properties.

But how do I know that's what I breathe? I read that somewhere else. I believe it. But I've never tested the air, I've never done the analysis. All of my knowledge about oxygen is second-hand.

I am not suggesting that oxygen does not exist. I'm not suggesting that there is a giant conspiracy to lie to everyone about what oxygen is. I'm pointing out that what we personally 'know' about oxygen is second-hand and limited, based on trust in our system of information, the statements of others, and our ability to draw general conclusions about these things.

That is not the same as having done the work ourselves. We accept the 'obviousness' of oxygen, but in reality, we are basing our belief in a trust in our systems of information. In reality, you cannot see it, touch it, weigh it, measure it, it has no odor, and we cannot sequester it on our own. We have to trust in what we are told.

Knowledge is a very sticky word. The main difference between knowledge and faith is that knowledge is justified true belief, whereas faith is simply belief, whether justified or unjustified, true or false. However, we only know that oxygen is real because we believe the many information systems that surround us that tell us it is - for those of us who have not done the actual experiments ourselves, that is.

If knowledge often relies upon what we presume to be real - like oxygen - then it is not that far removed from what some people presume to be real - like their religion. These are points on a line, not sides of a coin.