Burden of Proof in God Debates

[Theftz22]

Doggs- That was a pretty good post.

Ok, but then to have no BoP you would have to be limited to refuting that theist's specific for believing God is necessary, you wouldn't even be able to say God is not necessary.

Yes, if I want to retain my neutral position and incur no further burden of proof, then I cannot say god is not necessary, I should only refute the affirmative case made for the truth of god's necessity.

But the point is virtually no one does that. The statements "there is no reason to believe in God" and "God does/could not exist" are metaphysically the same, they're both metaphysically positive too. They both still have the BoP to show that a contingent being could be the first cause.

I don't know why you would think that no one does that. I can think of plenty of agnostics and negative atheists that don't think the arguments succeed one way or the other. But regardless of that, I think that there are some fundamental flaws with your argument here. Saying "there is no reason to believe in God" is not a metaphysical claim. It asserts nothing about existence, and therefore it cannot be metaphysically the same and metaphysically positive like "god does not exist" because that statement does assert something about existence. To say that there has been no reason given to affirm the truth of x is not to say that x is false. To say that there has been no reason given to affirm the truth of x does not say anything about the actual truth of x. X may be ultimately true or false, all we are saying is that, at least at the current time, we have been given no reason to think x is true, but that is quite consistent with x ending up being true anyway.

 

[ballin4life]

Ballin- With the parents situation, the Bop in terms of necessity would be equal on both sides.

True, the default position would be to have no opinion on God's necessity, but I think we disagree on what exactly that entails. To me, that would entail thinking there's a 50% chance God exists, because He would either be metaphysically necessary or not. Now if you truly have no opinion on it, it would be 50/50.

Ok, so you agree with me. I sort of disagree though with the jump to probability, although that may just be dependent on how it is phrased. At some level it seems like we could say that a priori every proposition is 50/50, but this would actually break the rules of probability in many cases (because you'd have mutually exclusive events adding up to a probability of more than 1).

So maybe you instead say the initial position is that the probability is 1/(number of possibilities). In your particular case, depending on your definition of God, it MIGHT be justified to say that there are only two possibilities. So please define God and I'll get back to you on that.

The thing is most people don't believe that should be the default position. Most people (particularly in this thread) are saying it should be not to assume the existence of God unless some positive evidence is provided for Him. Now that isn't 50/50, that's favouring the unecessary side. The fact they're witholding belief on God until there is (empirical) evidence means they're treating it the same as a pink unicorn- something which we require empirical evidence for because we've deemed its existence metaphysically unecessary. This position skips the necessity aspect and jumps staright into the existence aspect.

I think if God is 50/50, the unicorns are probably 50/50 too.

The reason why we don't believe in the pink unicorn unless there is evidence for it is because we deem it metaphysically unecessray. So all those people who are still equating God to a pink unicorn are forming judgement on what is metaphysically necessary, but not providing reasons for it, and are assuming it to be the default position.

So my original point still stands. Both theism and even the softest forms of atheism require a BoP.

Can you explain why unicorns are not metaphysically necessary?

 

[Dre89]

Doggs- Negative atheists have the position that there is no reason to believe in God unless evidence is provided for him.

You're right, saying there is no reason to believe God exists is not a metaphysical statement, it's a statement about existence, but it assumes contingent metaphysics. You've actually helped my point, the fact that the negative and strong atheist statements are different, yet have the same metaphysics is because they are not metaphysical statements.

Ballin- The unicorn's necessity is 50/50 until we've examined it. The reason why it's not an issue is because it's undoubtedly clear it's not necessary.

Nevertheless, to answer your questions about why the unicorn is not necessary, it's the same reason as why Zeus is not necessary. The unicorn has a specific form, is physical, so it presumes the prior existence of at least space and time, and anything which has a cause is not necessary, because there is a prior reason for its existence, etc. . You can contest these points, but that would be petty and missing the point of the debate. My point is not that God is necessary, but rather that the default position should not be that He isn't.

 

[ballin4life]

We tend to take into account the fact that most things aren't metaphysically necessary and by default assume things aren't metaphysically necessary.

You presented an argument for why unicorns aren't. But the whole point of this thread is to NOT present arguments. By presenting an argument, you basically admitted that you had some burden of proof to show that unicorns are not 50/50 also.

I think that's fine, but you could maybe also recognize why people don't just want to say everything is 50/50 by default.

 

[blazedaces]

The chance being 50/50 is making the assumption that the chance is uniformly distributed (equally likely) and this feels like an ungrounded assumption in my eyes.

-blazed

 

[1048576]

Doggs- Negative atheists have the position that there is no reason to believe in God unless evidence is provided for him.

You're right, saying there is no reason to believe God exists is not a metaphysical statement, it's a statement about existence, but it assumes contingent metaphysics. You've actually helped my point, the fact that the negative and strong atheist statements are different, yet have the same metaphysics is because they are not metaphysical statements.

Ballin- The unicorn's necessity is 50/50 until we've examined it. The reason why it's not an issue is because it's undoubtedly clear it's not necessary.

Nevertheless, to answer your questions about why the unicorn is not necessary, it's the same reason as why Zeus is not necessary. The unicorn has a specific form, is physical, so it presumes the prior existence of at least space and time, and anything which has a cause is not necessary, because there is a prior reason for its existence, etc. . You can contest these points, but that would be petty and missing the point of the debate. My point is not that God is necessary, but rather that the default position should not be that He isn't.

So you're defining God as "what must be?" Then yeah, I'd say that God must be, lol. But yeah, X is necessary is a claim. Because I can say that 75% of the universe must be paper and that 75% of the universe must be dark matter, both must be assumed false until proven otherwise, because to assume both true creates a contradiction, and there's no rationale to weigh the one claim over the other.

 

[Dre89]

Ballin4death- We have reason to believe unicorns aren't necessary. There is a BoP to show that unicorns aren't necessary, but the reason why it's never brought up in debate is because no one contends it. But if someone were to challenge it, we'd have sound reasoning to back up our metaphysical assumption.

Blazed- I'm saying the default position should be 50/50 until we've examined it. Now that isn't to say we should be 50/50 everytime a unicorn or spaghetti monster is mentioned, because we've already examined and concluded that contingent beings like that aren't metaphysically necessary. They all fall under the same metaphysical category, so you wouldn't need to start at 50/50 for every proposed physical being.

104- I'm not saying God is "what is", I'm not saying He is synomous with the phrase "first cause". I'm saying He's proposed to be a specific explanation of the first cause. What I mean by the metaphysically necessary God is that theists are claiming that the first cause must necessarily be self-necessary, eternal, changless, formless etc. and the only thing that meets that criteria is what we commonly refer to as "God". Now all I'm saying, is that as an atheist, there is a BoP to show that this God isn't metaphysically necessary, just as there is an equal BoP on the theist to prove it is necessary.

 

[ballin4life]

Ballin4death- We have reason to believe unicorns aren't necessary. There is a BoP to show that unicorns aren't necessary, but the reason why it's never brought up in debate is because no one contends it. But if someone were to challenge it, we'd have sound reasoning to back up our metaphysical assumption.

Blazed- I'm saying the default position should be 50/50 until we've examined it. Now that isn't to say we should be 50/50 everytime a unicorn or spaghetti monster is mentioned, because we've already examined and concluded that contingent beings like that aren't metaphysically necessary. They all fall under the same metaphysical category, so you wouldn't need to start at 50/50 for every proposed physical being.

104- I'm not saying God is "what is", I'm not saying He is synomous with the phrase "first cause". I'm saying He's proposed to be a specific explanation of the first cause. What I mean by the metaphysically necessary God is that theists are claiming that the first cause must necessarily be self-necessary, eternal, changless, formless etc. and the only thing that meets that criteria is what we commonly refer to as "God". Now all I'm saying, is that as an atheist, there is a BoP to show that this God isn't metaphysically necessary, just as there is an equal BoP on the theist to prove it is necessary.

See, most people would say that the default position assumes that things aren't metaphysically necessary. Because then you DO wind up in ridiculous situations where unicorns are 50/50 to exist, since the default position according to you does NOT include any assumptions on whether the thing is metaphysically necessary. (your arguments about unicorns don't matter because we only care about the default, pre-argument position).

Also I don't accept your argument as to why unicorns aren't metaphysically necessary, but we'd be looping back into discussion of what "cause" and "metaphysically necessary" mean.

 

[Dre89]

But if you're assessing the metaphysical necessity of each physical contingent being individually you're doing it wrong. The reason why people assume by default that something (which in most cases is a phsycial contingent being) isn't metaphysically necessary is because we have the metaphysical assumption that anything that is physical and contingent isn't metaphysically necessary.

It's not that the default position is always that something isn't metaphysically necessary, it's that something physical and contingent isn't metaphysically necessary, and that's because we have good reason to believe that. People are much quicker to dismiss the necessity of a physical contingent being such as a unicorn than they are to dismiss the necessity of a concept such as a "lifeforce", because the concept of a lifeforce deviates further away from physicality and contingency.

 

[ballin4life]

But if you're assessing the metaphysical necessity of each physical contingent being individually you're doing it wrong. The reason why people assume by default that something (which in most cases is a phsycial contingent being) isn't metaphysically necessary is because we have the metaphysical assumption that anything that is physical and contingent isn't metaphysically necessary.

It's not that the default position is always that something isn't metaphysically necessary, it's that something physical and contingent isn't metaphysically necessary, and that's because we have good reason to believe that. People are much quicker to dismiss the necessity of a physical contingent being such as a unicorn than they are to dismiss the necessity of a concept such as a "lifeforce", because the concept of a lifeforce deviates further away from physicality and contingency.

You're assuming that that's the one and only reason people don't consider things automatically metaphysically necessary. I'd say that your reason is still way too broad. What if I say time is metaphysically necessary?

Ironically this statement is at the least incompatible with your argument in the other burden of proof thread - since we can use "induction" to say that since nothing we know of is metaphysically necessary, therefore we shouldn't assume God is either.

 

[Dre89]

You're assuming that that's the one and only reason people don't consider things automatically metaphysically necessary. I'd say that your reason is still way too broad. What if I say time is metaphysically necessary?

It depends on what you mean by necessary. Time is necessary in that we could not have this current state of physical existence without time or space, but whether time is self-necessary (it was not caused) is where the metaphysics of the theist and atheist differ. It's up to the theist or atheist to prove it isn't self-necessary or it is self-necessary respectively, they both have a BoP in that regard.

You've put me in a tricky position here saying that people don't dismiss the existence of unicorns purely because they believe physical beings aren't necessary, because this is where I find atheist metaphysics inconsistent, but I don't want to attack it because that would be to enter a God debate, and I'm trying to keep neutral.

Ironically this statement is at the least incompatible with your argument in the other burden of proof thread - since we can use "induction" to say that since nothing we know of is metaphysically necessary, therefore we shouldn't assume God is either.

That's true, but if you've read that thread, I never said that the inductive inference was particularly strong, just that it was an inductive inference.

So it'd be just like the issue of the necessity of unicorns. Even if I concede that the default position should be that nothing metaphysically necessary exists (because that's all the inductive inference does) it'd still be easy to reason otherwise and override the initial inductive inference.

Also, just a technical point. Theoretically, that inductive inference doesn't work for atheism anyway because an atheist needs to maintain that at least something like time, space, the singularity etc. was self-necessary. Because if they don't, they're conceding that these things were caused. The point is the atheist needs at least something to be self-necessary, but that conflicts with the inductive inference as well, so we might as well dismiss the inference as weak seeing as it doesn't help either side.

 

[ballin4life]

It depends on what you mean by necessary. Time is necessary in that we could not have this current state of physical existence without time or space, but whether time is self-necessary (it was not caused) is where the metaphysics of the theist and atheist differ. It's up to the theist or atheist to prove it isn't self-necessary or it is self-necessary respectively, they both have a BoP in that regard.

You've put me in a tricky position here saying that people don't dismiss the existence of unicorns purely because they believe physical beings aren't necessary, because this is where I find atheist metaphysics inconsistent, but I don't want to attack it because that would be to enter a God debate, and I'm trying to keep neutral.



That's true, but if you've read that thread, I never said that the inductive inference was particularly strong, just that it was an inductive inference.

So it'd be just like the issue of the necessity of unicorns. Even if I concede that the default position should be that nothing metaphysically necessary exists (because that's all the inductive inference does) it'd still be easy to reason otherwise and override the initial inductive inference.

Ok, but that would be an argument indicating that you have a burden of proof to overcome.

Also, just a technical point. Theoretically, that inductive inference doesn't work for atheism anyway because an atheist needs to maintain that at least something like time, space, the singularity etc. was self-necessary. Because if they don't, they're conceding that these things were caused. The point is the atheist needs at least something to be self-necessary, but that conflicts with the inductive inference as well, so we might as well dismiss the inference as weak seeing as it doesn't help either side.

Well, to get technical, I don't see why something is necessarily either self-necessary or caused. But regardless, I wouldn't consider "time" a something. It's not an entity.

 

[Dre89]

I've always accepted a Bop for all theistic positions.

But time is still a positive existence, in that time could potentially not exist. The only thing that needs no explanation is non being, but now that being exists, any non being that would exist would be a result of being, thus needing an explanation.

It's virtually impossible to have a metaphysical system without something being self necessary, even nothingness can count as self necessary.

 

[Ocean]

But time is still a positive existence, in that time could potentially not exist. The only thing that needs no explanation is non being, but now that being exists, any non being that would exist would be a result of being, thus needing an explanation.

dude what

 

[Alien Vision]

What if I were to say that ''I have my own ''God'', this ''God'' is the only ''God'' that exists, and this ''God'' says that there is no ''God''.'' I've created the same argument everyone else has, and you still cannot prove whether or not my ''God'' exists, even though my ''Godless God'' would be worshipped by people without a ''God''.

You could create a paradox with the idea above.

Just my 0.02.

 

[Dre89]

AA- there'd be a BoP on you to prove that your God exists.

 

[Alien Vision]

AA- there'd be a BoP on you to prove that your God exists.

Then if you believe in God, by questioning mine, you would be questioning your own, because of the formula that I used. Whats even more interesting, is how can you disprove my ''Godless God'' and how can I prove my ''Godless God''? My ''Godless God'' said there is no ''God''.

Read what I said slowly, and you'll see that I created a paradox with the same formula everyone uses for their own ''God''. I just gave it a bit of a twist.

tl;dr - My god exists, but also doesn't exist.

 

[Dre89]

I'm not questioning my God if I question yours because they're different notions.

And as I've been saying throughout the thread, I don't need to disprove the existence of your God to not believe in it, I just need to show it's not metaphysically necessary.

 

[Alien Vision]

I'm not questioning my God if I question yours because they're different notions.

And as I've been saying throughout the thread, I don't need to disprove the existence of your God to not believe in it, I just need to show it's not metaphysically necessary.

Actually.. I used the exact same formula as anyone else's ''God''. I created the base which is the fallacies, then it needed legs, so then I added ambiguity, it was hungry, so I gave it a stomache that can only be explained with endless rhetor. But, where is the head? You are questioning your own God if you question mine, because we thrive off the same groundless rhetor.

There is no BoP in the paradox I presented, because my ''Godless God'' exists, and doesn't exist at the same time. While their ''God'' either exists, or doesn't exist.

 

[GwJ]

Summary of the thread.

 

[Alien Vision]

^ That actually makes sense guys. Seriously. Read it carefully.

 

[ciaza]

AV- You have to first SHOW that Dre.'s God is based on fallacies rather than just saying it and then comparing it your own ridiculous, useless and - by your admission - baseless God.

 

[Alien Vision]

AV- You have to first SHOW that Dre.'s God is based on fallacies rather than just saying it and then comparing it your own ridiculous, useless and - by your admission - baseless God.

Do you even know what a fallacy is? Everyone's idea for God is a fallacy, because it cannot be proved in anyway, but it can be backed up by a plausible argument by using rhetor. Last time I checked, nobody has proved God's existence without supporting him with endless rhetor. Why do you say such mean things to my ''Godless God''?

 

[Ocean]

Then if you believe in God, by questioning mine, you would be questioning your own, because of the formula that I used. Whats even more interesting, is how can you disprove my ''Godless God'' and how can I prove my ''Godless God''? My ''Godless God'' said there is no ''God''.

Read what I said slowly, and you'll see that I created a paradox with the same formula everyone uses for their own ''God''. I just gave it a bit of a twist.

tl;dr - My god exists, but also doesn't exist.

this is quite a weak argument.

first off, you didn't state at all why your god is metaphysically necessary, which is the entire basis of dre's argument. it's unfair to say that "he would be questioning his own"if you gave different criteria than he did.
second, the "you can't disprove and I can't prove" point is moot. you cannot disprove that we are not living in a reality-like video game that we only realize it exists once we die, but I can't prove it either. the statement holds no value because it applies to an infinite amount of situations without increasing any of their possibility.
third, your paradox is not a paradox. you make no implications that your god is omnipotent, or omniscient. because of this, your god saying there is no god could possibly hold no value as a statement. if he is not omnipotent then he cannot enforce this statement; if he is not omniscient then he does not know that this is incorrect. if he has either of these traits, then your idea is impossible and the statement holds no weight.

this really is just a convoluted way of presenting the "can god remember a time where he doesn't exist?" argument, except because you provide an answer of yes it holds little/no value.

Do you even know what a fallacy is? Everyone's idea for God is a fallacy, because it cannot be proved in anyway, but it can be backed up by a plausible argument by using rhetor. Last time I checked, nobody has proved God's existence without supporting him with endless rhetor. Why do you say such mean things to my ''Godless God''?

good lord, do you not know what a fallacy is?

something not being able to be proved does NOT make it a fallacy. and god can be proven, if it was to present sound evidence for itself. atheism can be proven if it is proven that time and space did not have a first cause. both are provable, but not likely to be proven. a god becomes fallacious when it has conflicting criteria, which not every god does.

 

[ciaza]

Thanks Ocean.

Though I could have said basically that myself further proving my worth as a potential debate hall member and stuff =P.

Do you even know what a fallacy is? Everyone's idea for God is a fallacy, because it cannot be proved in anyway, but it can be backed up by a plausible argument by using rhetor. Last time I checked, nobody has proved God's existence without supporting him with endless rhetor. Why do you say such mean things to my ''Godless God''?

**** dog, really? Stay right there I'mma go break the news to William Lane Craig. Conceitedness aside, just because something is unfalsifiable does not make it a logical fallacy.

EDIT: OCEAN

Y U STEAL MY THUNDER WITH YOUR EDITS

 

[Alien Vision]

good lord, do you not know what a fallacy is?

something not being able to be proved does NOT make it a fallacy. and god can be proven, if it was to present sound evidence for itself. atheism can be proven if it is proven that time and space did not have a first cause. both are provable, but not likely to be proven. a god becomes fallacious when it has conflicting criteria, which not every god does.

Of course not. ''Something not being able to be proved yet that can be argued with illogical statements to make it sound plausible'' is a fallacy..

Also.. I think I see what you were saying about my ''Godless God''. Also, how can you prove God is real though? Honestly, tell me what 100% evidence you have of him? Without spouting out endless rhetor that doesn't answer my question wholesomely.

I want a direct, comprehensive answer..

 

[Ocean]

I'm sorry! ;_; I wasn't trying to.

 

[ciaza]

Dw about it Ocean. Let's just pin it on great minds think alike shall we?

AV: You STILL have to show where the "illogical statements" are. Do you want scientific evidence of God? Tough, God is inaccessible by science, so no, I can't give you that evidence. Know that simply because we don't have scientific evidence of something does not mean that something does not exist however.

This is getting rather off track.

 

[ballin4life]

It's virtually impossible to have a metaphysical system without something being self necessary, even nothingness can count as self necessary.

Why? I don't see how that's the case at all. There's the obvious example of something extending infinitely backwards, but also I think there's a big distinction between "uncaused" and "self-necessary". Just because something doesn't have a prior sufficient cause, that does not mean that it is determined to happen in every possible universe.

 

[Alien Vision]

Dw about it Ocean. let's just pin it on great minds think alike shall we?

AV: You STILL have to show where the "illogical statements" are. Do you want scientific evidence of God? Tough, God is inaccessible by science, so no, I can't give you that evidence. Know that simply because we don't have scientific evidence of something does not mean that something does not exist however.

This is getting rather off track.

Let me give you a list.

1. ''God'' works through all of us. Yet, we have serial killers?

2. ''God'' created the universe, and everything in it? If this is not illogical, I don't know what is..

3. ''God'' apparently doesn't condone hatred, and torture. Even though there are things in the bible that says otherwise.

4.''God'' answers our prayers, but not all of them? Tell me how illogical this doesn't sound, really.

5. Which God are we talking about? Universe God, or religion God? .-. Can't it work either way, since they both fit the same characteristics, but are existent in two different contexts?

Things like this makes you wonder how the hell does he still stand ''logically existent'', how in anyway does this even encourage a debate if you cannot prove him at all, because everything revolves around rehtor, and empty answers.

I don't understand this BoP, I guess you could say. Help me out here.

 

[ballin4life]

Dre is 100% talking about "universe God".

This is why I said in previous threads that it's very misleading to use the term "God" when you really mean "first cause".

 

[Ocean]

uh, this is not about a biblical god. you need to realize that more than one idea of god exists.

 

[Alien Vision]

Dre is 100% talking about "universe God".

This is why I said in previous threads that it's very misleading to use the term "God" when you really mean "first cause".

I thought using the other ''God'' works too? They both are omnipotent, omniscient, and they both cannot be proved with logical standpoints. Although one is more of a GOD, and the other one is more of a creator.

 

[ciaza]

No, your 5 points wouldn't apply to the God we were talking about in this thread.

 

[Alien Vision]

No, your points wouldn't apply to the God we were talking about in this thread.

Alright then.. I have made a fool out of myself, and I apologize.

Continue.

 

[Ocean]

you thought wrong then. a biblical god has more criteria than a minimalist god, and it has criteria that contradicts itself, while a minimalist god does not. one is not synonymous with the other.

hey look at that, ciaza stole my thunder this time!

 

[ciaza]

Communication error. I can now understand your tone when you were talking about God in this thread AV. A lot of hate can be justified when talking about the Christian God, though I don't want to spark a debate on that.

Everything balanced out Ocean =D

 

[Alien Vision]

you thought wrong then. a biblical god has more criteria than a minimalist god, and it has criteria that contradicts itself, while a minimalist god does not. one is not synonymous with the other.

Alright. Sorry. I am pretty new at the debate hall. There is still alot of words you guys use that I have to get used to. It is kind of easy for me to derail from the main discussion. Atleast I try, regardless of the humility I suffer. I rather lose 100 battles and then become a triumphant warrior, than win my first battle and become one without any experience for defeat.

 

[ballin4life]

I thought using the other ''God'' works too? They both are omnipotent, omniscient, and they both cannot be proved with logical standpoints. Although one is more of a GOD, and the other one is more of a creator.

well, I would say that "first cause" does not have to be omnipotent omniscient etc. Dre disagrees though.

Alright. Sorry. I am pretty new at the debate hall. There is still alot of words you guys use that I have to get used to. It is kind of easy for me to derail from the main discussion. Atleast I try, regardless of the humility I suffer. I rather lose 100 battles and then become a triumphant warrior, than win my first battle and become one without any experience for defeat.

If you haven't seen the million different versions of God debates we've already had then I don't blame you. Like I said Dre's terminology is very misleading.

 

[Alien Vision]

If you haven't seen the million different versions of God debates we've already had then I don't blame you. Like I said Dre's terminology is very misleading.

The only ones I even tried to dwell into was the debate for creation and design, then this one.

I like challenges. Lol.