Another Burden of Proof Thread

[FloatingEgg]

I thought I had the whole burden of proof thing figured out until I started reading Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer. According to Damer "Just as a person is generally held accountable for his or her own actions, one who makes a positive or negative claim about something has what is called the burden of proof." He goes on to address the atheist position in the following exerpt:

...you may not be prepared to prove that ghosts do not exist; but if, on the basis of the available evidence, you do not believe that they do, you could simply act as if they do not, without denying their existence. Most people who do not believe in God do not call themselves atheists; they simply act as if God does not exist. They may be neither interested in nor able to take on the burden of proving that God does not exist by calling themselves atheists.

[kennethamy]

I thought I had the whole burden of proof thing figured out until I started reading Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer. According to Damer "Just as a person is generally held accountable for his or her own actions, one who makes a positive or negative claim about something has what is called the burden of proof." He goes on to address the atheist position in the following exerpt:

...you may not be prepared to prove that ghosts do not exist; but if, on the basis of the available evidence, you do not believe that they do, you could simply act as if they do not, without denying their existence. Most people who do not believe in God do not call themselves atheists; they simply act as if God does not exist. They may be neither interested in nor able to take on the burden of proving that God does not exist by calling themselves atheists.

First of all, suppose both you and I are walking together on a day when the Sun is shining, there is a cool breeze, and the temperature is about 70 degrees, and I assert, "It is a nice day". I hardly think that I have the burden of proof in those circumstances. And what could I tell you that you do not already know if you really thought I had to support my assertion? It isn't who makes the claim that matters, it is the initial plausibility of the claim that matters.

Second of all, we should distinguish (as we often have on this board) between two kinds of atheists: weak and strong. The weak atheist is one who does not believe in God. The strong atheist is one who believes there is no God. The difference is between "not-believing" and "believing-not".

The weak atheist has nothing to prove (except that he does not believe in God, which is only a matter of showing he is sincere when he asserts he does not believe in God). Of course, he may still be asked why he does not believe in God with the suggestion that there is reason to believe in God which the weak atheist has missed or ignored. The strong atheist who asserts there is no God has a burden of proof only if it is true that the proposition that there is a God is inititially plausible (as I mentioned earlier) and that, of course, is controversial. But, in this case, in the interests of conversational harmony, and social comity, I think that the strong atheist should not play the initial plausibility card (it would make him seem churlish) and indulge the believer even if he does not think that he has the burden of proof since the claim that God exists is not initially plausible. The strong atheist, after all, has ammunition which he can use.

[untermensche]

It has been discovered that humans evolved first and then all human cultural artifacts evolved later on. Like the concept of 'God'.

Since observation tells us that humans were here before 'God' was here, the burden is on those claiming that actually 'God' was here before humans were here.

[Cosmo]

I'd throw in my lot in with the OP. The burden of proof lies with the person making the positive or negative case about a claim. The burden is misplaced if someone says that a proposition is true or false because of the absence of evidence for the converse.

[kennethamy]

It has been discovered that humans evolved first and then all human cultural artifacts evolved later on. Like the concept of 'God'.

Since observation tells us that humans were here before 'God' was here, the burden is on those claiming that actually 'God' was here before humans were here.

Observation tells us that people invented the concept of God, so people antedated the concept of God. Observation does not tell us that people antedated God (if God exists). I think you ought to distinguish between the concept and what, if anything, the concept refers to.

For example, observation tells us that people antedated the concept of the Sun. But any astronomer will tell you that the Sun was around way before people were around, so the Sun antedated people.

[kennethamy]

I'd throw in my lot in with the OP. The burden of proof lies with the person making the positive or negative case about a claim. The burden is misplaced if someone says that a proposition is true or false because of the absence of evidence for the converse.

So if I claim that you exist, the burden of proof lies with me? Is that your position? Or if I claim that a rope one foot long is longer than a rope one inch long, the burden lies with me?

I don't understand that last sentence, since I think you must mean "the contrary" or maybe just "the opposite", not "the converse". The converse of "all X is Y" is "All Y is X" and that has nothing to do with the issue. But are you saying that if I assert there is no tooth fairy because there is no evidence that there is a tooth fairy, that the burden of proof lies with me? The absence of evidence is evidence of absence whenever you would expect evidence if the thing in question were present. For example, if I asserted that the world had not blown up, you would not tell me that since I am saying that only because there is no evidence that the world has blown up, the burden of proof lies with me, would you. Don't you think that the fact that the world (including you and me) is still around is enough evidence?

[Cosmo]

So if I claim that you exist, the burden of proof lies with me? Is that your position? Or if I claim that a rope one foot long is longer than a rope one inch long, the burden lies with me?

I don't understand that last sentence, since I think you must mean "the contrary" or maybe just "the opposite", not "the converse". The converse of "all X is Y" is "All Y is X" and that has nothing to do with the issue. But are you saying that if I assert there is no tooth fairy because there is no evidence that there is a tooth fairy, that the burden of proof lies with me? The absence of evidence is evidence of absence whenever you would expect evidence if the thing in question were present. For example, if I asserted that the world had not blown up, you would not tell me that since I am saying that only because there is no evidence that the world has blown up, the burden of proof lies with me, would you. Don't you think that the fact that the world (including you and me) is still around is enough evidence?


I'll tackle your first example of my existence because the other examples seem to be further illustrations of your point.

The burden of proof would lie on you if you claimed that I existed was true soley because there was no evidence that falsified my existence. To make that clearer consider unicorns. You could have said unicorns exist because there is no evidence that falsifies their existence. In other words you would be saying, "Prove that they don't exist".In this case, you have misplaced the burden. The burden would lie on you to demonstrate their existence.

[kennethamy]

I'll tackle your first example of my existence because the other examples seem to be further illustrations of your point.

The burden of proof would lie on you if you claimed that I existed was true soley because there was no evidence that falsified my existence. To make that clearer consider unicorns. You could have said unicorns exist because there is no evidence that falsifies their existence. In other words you would be saying, "Prove that they don't exist".In this case, you have misplaced the burden. The burden would lie on you to demonstrate their existence.

I still don't understand. If there is no reason to suppose that some proposition, p is false, and I assert it, why is the burden of proof that the proposition is true on me? Obviously there is, to say the least, a lot of reason to suppose that the proposition that there are unicorns is false. Therefore, if I were to assert it, then I would have a heavy burden of proof. But if I were to assert that there are horses, since there are no good reasons to suppose that proposition is false, I have no burden of proof.

[untermensche]

Observation tells us that people invented the concept of God, so people antedated the concept of God. Observation does not tell us that people antedated God (if God exists). I think you ought to distinguish between the concept and what, if anything, the concept refers to.

For example, observation tells us that people antedated the concept of the Sun. But any astronomer will tell you that the Sun was around way before people were around, so the Sun antedated people.
There is a difference between a concept with an observable referent, and one that has no such referent.

That is what is needed to be distinguised.

[kennethamy]

There is a difference between a concept with an observable referent, and one that has no such referent.

That is what is needed to be distinguised.

Don't get your point. Concepts require people. The referents of concepts do not (unless, of course, they are people). That the concept of God exists is independent of whether God exists. (Although there have been attempts to argue otherwise). Whether the referent is observable is irrelevant to whether that referent exists, although not irrelevant to whether we know it exists. But, whether there is a pearl at the bottom of the ocean is independent of any concept of such a pearl.

I guess you had better explain.

[untermensche]

Don't get your point. Concepts require people. The referents of concepts do not (unless, of course, they are people). That the concept of God exists is independent of whether God exists. (Although there have been attempts to argue otherwise). Whether the referent is observable is irrelevant to whether that referent exists, although not irrelevant to whether we know it exists. But, whether there is a pearl at the bottom of the ocean is independent of any concept of such a pearl.

I guess you had better explain.
I care NOT that the referent to the concept of god EXISTS.

The concept is not observable and therefore could not have existed prior to humans.

And here we find the distinction.

Those concepts which any conscious entity with the same abilities to observe as humans would definitely discover, like a concept for grass, and the sky, and the sun, and those which they may not, like god.

There is no necessity for the concept of god to exist.

[kennethamy]

There is no necessity for the concept of god to exist.


I never thought about it, but I suppose that there is no necessity that any concept exist, so, there is no necessity for the concept of God to exist. What has that to do with whether God exists?

[Black Badger]

I thought I had the whole burden of proof thing figured out until I started reading Attacking Faulty Reasoning by T. Edward Damer. According to Damer "Just as a person is generally held accountable for his or her own actions, one who makes a positive or negative claim about something has what is called the burden of proof." He goes on to address the atheist position in the following exerpt:

...you may not be prepared to prove that ghosts do not exist; but if, on the basis of the available evidence, you do not believe that they do, you could simply act as if they do not, without denying their existence. Most people who do not believe in God do not call themselves atheists; they simply act as if God does not exist. They may be neither interested in nor able to take on the burden of proving that God does not exist by calling themselves atheists.

That's really terrible thinking. You don't have to prove that god doesn't exist to call yourself an atheist, anymore than you have to prove that he does to call yourself a christian. Burden of proof applies to a debate between at least two parties, not to individual beliefs or labels.

The earlier part is even worse. If, based on available evidence, you believe a thing doesn't exist, why on earth would you doublethink yourself by acting as if it doesn't, while refusing to acknowledge that you think such is the case?

[untermensche]

I never thought about it, but I suppose that there is no necessity that any concept exist, so, there is no necessity for the concept of God to exist. What has that to do with whether God exists?
The necessity is the necessity of language. To get another to know what you are talking about.

That is why words are invented.

Again, the distinction between words invented with observable referents, and those without.

No matter how you want to approach this, a distinction exists.

[kennethamy]

The necessity is the necessity of language. To get another to know what you are talking about.

That is why words are invented.

Again, the distinction between words invented with observable referents, and those without.

No matter how you want to approach this, a distinction exists.


Which distinction are you referring to? Between the concept and the referent? Certainly. And I guess between concepts and observable referents too. But some refererents are not observable. For instance, the referent of the concept three is not observable. Nor is the referent of the concept, neutrino observable. Again, I am not sure that the referent of the concept, concept, is observable. Have you ever observed a concept? What did it look like?

[untermensche]

Which distinction are you referring to? Between the concept and the referent? Certainly. And I guess between concepts and observable referents too. But some refererents are not observable. For instance, the referent of the concept three is not observable. Nor is the referent of the concept, neutrino observable. Again, I am not sure that the referent of the concept, concept, is observable. Have you ever observed a concept? What did it look like?
The distinction between those concepts which have an observable referent and those which do not.

They can both be called concepts, because of language, but they are not the same thing.

[kennethamy]

The distinction between those concepts which have an observable referent and those which do not.

They can both be called concepts, because of language, but they are not the same thing.

I suppose that cats and dogs can be called "animals" because of language too. But so what? Cats and dogs are animals anyway. And concepts that have a referent, and those that don't have a referent are both concepts anyway. Of course there is a difference. One kind has a referent, and the other kind does not have a referent. But both are concepts. As you pointed out. But, unless the concept is a self-contradictory concept, like the concept of a square-circle, it is impossible to tell whether the concept has a referent or not simply by examining the concept. So, what is your point?

[untermensche]

I suppose that cats and dogs can be called "animals" because of language too. But so what? Cats and dogs are animals anyway. And concepts that have a referent, and those that don't have a referent are both concepts anyway. Of course there is a difference. One kind has a referent, and the other kind does not have a referent. But both are concepts. As you pointed out. But, unless the concept is a self-contradictory concept, like the concept of a square-circle, it is impossible to tell whether the concept has a referent or not simply by examining the concept. So, what is your point?
So the concept god is the same as the concept dog?

How many legs does god have?

[kennethamy]

So the concept god is the same as the concept dog?

How many legs does god have?


Of course not. To say that the concept of God and the concept of Dog are both concepts is obviously not to say that they are the same concept. Just as to say that the concept of Dog and the concept of Cat are both concepts is not to say that they are the same concept. There can be two different concepts which are both concepts, but not the same concept. Wherever did you get the idea that because both X and Y are concepts, that they are the same concept?

Both the number 3 and the number 4 are numbers, but that doesn't mean they are the same number. So why should it be that just because the concept of X and the concept of Y are both concepts, that they are the same concept?

[untermensche]

Of course not. To say that the concept of God and the concept of Dog are both concepts is obviously not to say that they are the same concept. Just as to say that the concept of Dog and the concept of Cat are both concepts is not to say that they are the same concept. There can be two different concepts which are both concepts, but not the same concept. Wherever did you get the idea that because both X and Y are concepts, that they are the same concept?

Both the number 3 and the number 4 are numbers, but that doesn't mean they are the same number. So why should it be that just because the concept of X and the concept of Y are both concepts, that they are the same concept?
You said they were similar concepts.

I say they are similar only that there are words to describe them, as all concepts require. But there the simularity ends.

Tell me one thing for certain about this concept god.

[kennethamy]

You said they were similar concepts.

I say they are similar only that there are words to describe them, as all concepts require. But there the simularity ends.

Tell me one thing for certain about this concept god.

I said what were "similar concepts"? I have lost you. In any case, similar concepts are not the same concept. And, clearly, the concept of God, and the concept of Dog aren't even similar concepts.

Depends on which concept of God you are talking about. The concept of the traditional Christian God is that God is creator of the universe; all good; all powerful; all merciful; but you know the rest. Why are you asking me? Of course, that doesn't mean that concept has a referent.

[untermensche]

I said what were "similar concepts"? I have lost you. In any case, similar concepts are not the same concept. And, clearly, the concept of God, and the concept of Dog aren't even similar concepts.

Depends on which concept of God you are talking about. The concept of the traditional Christian God is that God is creator of the universe; all good; all powerful; all merciful; but you know the rest. Why are you asking me? Of course, that doesn't mean that concept has a referent.
You basically asserted; a concept is a concept.
And concepts that have a referent, and those that don't have a referent are both concepts anyway.
And I have said that they are both CALLED concepts, but ARE different things.

I asked you to tell me something certain about the concept god. Not something contingent.

[kennethamy]

You basically asserted; a concept is a concept.

And I have said that they are both CALLED concepts, but ARE different things.

I asked you to tell me something certain about the concept god. Not something contingent.

Something certain? Sure. About the Christian concept of God, it is certain that according to that concept, God is the creator of the Universe.

[untermensche]

Something certain? Sure. About the Christian concept of God, it is certain that according to that concept, God is the creator of the Universe.
The Christian concept of god is one contingent concept amougst many.

I asked for something certain about the concept of god.

Not a contingent concept of a concept. But a piece of certain knowledge.

Like: Dogs are evolved organisms.

[kennethamy]

The Christian concept of god is one contingent concept amougst many.

I asked for something certain about the concept of god.

Not a contingent concept of a concept. But a piece of certain knowledge.

Like: Dogs are evolved organisms.

That dogs are evolved organisms is not a truth about the concept, dog. It is a truth about dogs. You really have to distinguish between the concept, and what the concept's putative referent is. It is a necessary (and, I suppose, certain) truth about the concept unicorn, that unicorns have a horn in the middle of their forehead. But, of course, it is false that unicorns have horns at all, since there are no unicorns. To talk about the concept of X is one thing; to talk about X is a very different thing. For instance, the concept of X may exist, but X may not exist (e.g. unicorn). Or X may exist, and the concept of X may not exist. For example, microbes in the Middle Ages existed, but the concept of microbes did not exist in the Middle Ages. Or, of course, both the concept, and the object of the concept may exist, for example, tigers. Or neither may exist. Who knows?

[untermensche]

That dogs are evolved organisms is not a truth about the concept, dog. It is a truth about dogs. You really have to distinguish between the concept, and what the concept's putative referent is. It is a necessary (and, I suppose, certain) truth about the concept unicorn, that unicorns have a horn in the middle of their forehead. But, of course, it is false that unicorns have horns at all, since there are no unicorns. To talk about the concept of X is one thing; to talk about X is a very different thing. For instance, the concept of X may exist, but X may not exist (e.g. unicorn). Or X may exist, and the concept of X may not exist. For example, microbes in the Middle Ages existed, but the concept of microbes did not exist in the Middle Ages. Or, of course, both the concept, and the object of the concept may exist, for example, tigers. Or neither may exist. Who knows?
You have drifted to a place of no interest to me.

You have not refuted my simple point.

There is a difference between a concept with an observable referent and one without.

And saying a dog is an evolved organism is to say something about the concept of dog, something about every individual dog, and something about dogs.

[kennethamy]

You basically asserted; a concept is a concept.

And I have said that they are both CALLED concepts, but ARE different things.

I asked you to tell me something certain about the concept god. Not something contingent.

Of course a concept is a concept. That's a tautology. And so is a number a number, and an animal an animal. How could that mean that all concept are the same, anymore than that all numbers are the same, or that all animals are the same?

I suppose you mean by "certain" "necessary" as in "necessary truth". It is a necessary truth about the concept of a Christian God that God is the creator of the Universe. If, by a certain truth you mean a necessary truth, and your contrast of "certain" with "contingent" would seem to indicate that, then, to repeat, it is certain about the concept of the Christian God that He is the creator of the Universe. So, there is your reply. If you mean something else than necessary by "not contingent" then please do let me know. (As you may know, "contingent" is a logical property; and 'certain" is an epistemological property. Therefore, I cannot be sure I understand you when you tell me you want something certain and not contingent. For example, Descartes held that "I exist" is both certain and, also, contingent. Let me repeat: Descartes held that "I exist" is both certain and contingent.

[untermensche]

Of course a concept is a concept.
Calling two different things both concepts is the problem.

They are not the same thing.

The concept with the observable referent is limited by it's observed reality.

The concept with no observable referent has no limits. You can in fact give the concept illogical attributes, like infinite power.

[kennethamy]

Calling two different things both concepts is the problem.

They are not the same thing.

The concept with the observable referent is limited by it's observed reality.

The concept with no observable referent has no limits. You can in fact give the concept illogical attributes, like infinite power.

No idea what you are about. Have you any point. I certainly agree that there is a difference between a concept that has no referent, and one that has a referent. The difference is that one has a referent, and the other has no referent. There are, no doubt, other differences too. So, now what? (What you might mean by having limits or not having limits, I cannot even guess. But clearly, the concept of a cure for cancer may have a referent or may not have a referent. At the moment, no one knows. But there are, so far as I can tell no "illogical attributes" such a concept has. The concept of an African tiger has, so far as I know, no referent. But it has limits, and it does not have illogical attributes (whatever those might be). It simply has no referent. But, like the concept of an Asian tiger, it is a concept, although, of course, it is not the same concept. The concept of an African tiger has, as a putative referent, an African tiger. The concept of an Asian tiger has as its referent, an Asian tiger. There is nothing limitless, or any other mystical property, about the concept of an African tiger. It is just a fact that it has no referent, as contrasted with the fact that the concept of an Asian tiger does have a referent.

But, so what's the big deal? I think you should make some point. Don't you?

[untermensche]

So, now what?
If we agree the concept of god is not like a concept that has an observable referent, then it is in a different category of concepts.

So that is the first step in any burden of proof case.

Defining what is possible to prove about concepts with no observable referent.

I say there is nothing that can be proved about such concepts, and to even talk about proof, when proof is based on observation, is absurd.

[Chris Porter]

kennethamy, I think untermensche wants you to give some necessary description of "god", not "Christian god", nor "Norse god", nor "Greek god", but the concept that defines "god". As "dog" has a necessary (and also observable) referent, "god" must have some necessary (but not necessarily observable) referent. What is the referent of the concept "god"?

Some people may say the referent doesn't exist, probably because unlike the referent for "dog" the referent for "god" appears to have many conflicting attributes.

By the way, could it be possible that a concept's referent is a concept?

[kennethamy]

kennethamy, I think untermensche wants you to give some necessary description of "god", not "Christian god", nor "Norse god", nor "Greek god", but the concept that defines "god". As "dog" has a necessary (and also observable) referent, "god" must have some necessary (but not necessarily observable) referent. What is the referent of the concept "god"?

Some people may say the referent doesn't exist, probably because unlike the referent for "dog" the referent for "god" appears to have many conflicting attributes.

By the way, could it be possible that a concept's referent is a concept?

I don't believe there is just one concept of God. There are a number of conceptions of God, some of them closer to each other than to others. For instance, the Islamic, the Christian, and the Judaic conceptions all have in common the God is transcendent (differs from His creation) whereas, for instance, the Spinozistic conception is that God is immanent (identical with his creation). The Hindu conception is polytheistic: again another difference. So I don't know of any single concept of God. But why believe that the concept of God must have a referent? The concept of Santa Claus doesn't. As a matter of fact, it seem to me false that any concept must have a referent (observable or not), for the reason that Kant (and Hume gave) namely that existence is not a property, so that the no concept includes the notion of existence as part of itself. Whether something exists (whether, that is, a concept has a referent) is a contingent matter which cannot be determined by the examination of the concept in question. Nothing, in other words must exist (which is, of course, to say that it is false that anything must exist). Hume put it well: "the idea of something as existing is identical with the concept of that thing". Or as Kant put it, "the concept of an existent 100 dollars contains not one dollar more than just the concept of 100 dollars".

Of course it is possible for a concept's referent to be a concept. For example, the referent of the concept of the concept of dog, is a concept. Namely the concept of dog. But the referent of the concept of dog, is dog. And, of course, the concept of unicorn fails to have a referent. But the concept of the concept of unicorn does, of course, have a referent.

So, the question, "What is the referent of the concept, god?" is a loaded question since it assumes that the concept, god, does have a referent. Atheists do not believe it does. Theists believe it does. And agnostics don't know whether it does.

The "load" of that question is the hidden assumption that every term (or at least, noun or noun phrase) has a referent. But that assumption is clearly false.

The medievals used to talk of the fallacy of, "unum nomen, unum nominatum ("for every name, a thing named") But not only is it false that all words refer ("although" "the" don't refer), but it is false that all referring terms (nouns and noun phrases) have referents. ("unicorn", "Santa Claus", "The Easter Bunny", etc.)

[kennethamy]

If we agree the concept of god is not like a concept that has an observable referent, then it is in a different category of concepts.

So that is the first step in any burden of proof case.

Defining what is possible to prove about concepts with no observable referent.

I say there is nothing that can be proved about such concepts, and to even talk about proof, when proof is based on observation, is absurd.

Why suppose that the concept, God has any referent? Observable or otherwise?

[untermensche]

Why suppose that the concept, God has any referent? Observable or otherwise?
Because that is the issue at hand, proving that it does.

But if the referent can be observed in no way, there is no way to prove it exists.

But my initial comment is the most eligant. IMHO.

Where the burden truelly lies, is with those who claim the concept of god somehow predates human culture.

Because this in in direct conflict with observation.

[marzipan]

cosmo said The burden of proof lies with the person making the positive or negative case about a claim. The burden is misplaced if someone says that a proposition is true or false because of the absence of evidence for the converse.
(comment edited in after posting : I just re-read what you wrote and now I dont know if I am supporting you or contradicting you.)
I do not believe this is true ! Surely the burdon of proof works like this:suppose there is a thimble that may, or may not be hidden in a house.
You say you believe there is a thimble and I say there is not.
I cannot prove there is not a thimble hidden in the house can I?
because no matter how hard we search, if we still dont find it, you can say "we just never looked in the right place". We could smash the house down a millimetre at a time and though we spend a thousand years looking for it, you would still have the right to say - "we just may have overlooked it somewhere
However - If you believe there is a thimble then all you have to do to prove you claim is to show me the thimble.

This is borne out better if (yes I hear some people groaning) we go to the
question of god. A creationist has asserted the positive theory that god created the universe. An atheist may deny the existence of god while not asserting any alternate theory to creationism, why because unless the person asserting a positive claim can prove their arguments the all I have to do is say the evidence speaks for itself - if you cannot prove god exists logically god cannot exist.
That is not to say I want an argument about god - this is a burdon of proof thing

[kennethamy]

Because that is the issue at hand, proving that it does.

But if the referent can be observed in no way, there is no way to prove it exists.

But my initial comment is the most eligant. IMHO.

Where the burden truelly lies, is with those who claim the concept of god somehow predates human culture.

Because this in in direct conflict with observation.

I really think I no longer understand what you are asking (or asserting). A person who asserts that God exists clearly has the burden of proof. But what is all this stuff about concepts, then? The reason he has the burden of proof is that the claim is not initially plausible.

Suppose the claimant does not claim that the concept of God predates human culture (what would that mean anyway). Doesn't he still have the burden of proof? So what has that claim to do with the burden of proof issue? I know of no one (except maybe Plato) who has ever claimed that any concept predates human culture. So not only is this matter irrelevant, it is a strawman. And suppose that the concept of God did predate human culture (whatever that might mean). So what? The question would still be, does the concept of God refer to anything?

By the way, I am not sure what it means to say that the referent can be observed in no way. Can the referent of what physicists call "theoretical entities" or "unobservables" like neutrinos which are believed to exist because they are the best explanation for what, in fact, we do observe, observed in any way? In what way? Lots of people think that although God cannot be observed in any way, there is evidence that God exists because He is a kind of theoretical entity. God is the best explanation (so they argue) of what we do observe, namely the universe. God, so to speak, has the scientific status of a neutrino.

[untermensche]

I really think I no longer understand what you are asking (or asserting). A person who asserts that God exists clearly has the burden of proof. But what is all this stuff about concepts, then? The reason he has the burden of proof is that the claim is not initially plausible.

Suppose the claimant does not claim that the concept of God predates human culture (what would that mean anyway). Doesn't he still have the burden of proof? So what has that claim to do with the burden of proof issue? I know of no one (except maybe Plato) who has ever claimed that any concept predates human culture. So not only is this matter irrelevant, it is a strawman. And suppose that the concept of God did predate human culture (whatever that might mean). So what? The question would still be, does the concept of God refer to anything?
If the concept of god predates human culture as though who have "faith" in the concept profess, then they can say that the burden of proof is on those who want to prove god does not exist.

But if you want to avoid that nonsense, you shift the burden to proving the concept of god predates human culture.

[kennethamy]

If the concept of god predates human culture as though who have "faith" in the concept profess, then they can say that the burden of proof is on those who want to prove god does not exist.

But if you want to avoid that nonsense, you shift the burden to proving the concept of god predates human culture.

Why should I care whether the concept of God predates human culture? The issue is whether there is a good argument that the concept of God has a referent- no matter what the history of the concept is.

[untermensche]

Why should I care whether the concept of God predates human culture? The issue is whether there is a good argument that the concept of God has a referent- no matter what the history of the concept is.
You care because that is the position of the other side.

If god exists, then by the most SIMPLE logic, god predates human culture.

So if some genius wants to claim god exists, all they need do is prove god predates human culture, since this is a logical necessity of the concept.

[Chris Porter]

I don't believe there is just one concept of God. There are a number of conceptions of God, some of them closer to each other than to others.
That's probably something untermensche may have been looking for.
To simplify:
Unlike the concept dog, which has a referent, the concept god does not have a referent.
Further, there is no concept called "god", there are many concepts called "god"
For instance, the Islamic, the Christian, and the Judaic conceptions all have in common the God is transcendent (differs from His creation) whereas, for instance, the Spinozistic conception is that God is immanent (identical with his creation). The Hindu conception is polytheistic: again another difference. So I don't know of any single concept of God. But why believe that the concept of God must have a referent?
Because you also believe that some referents are not visible, like the referent "three". It seemed reasonable to infer you may have an invisible referent for "god".
The concept of Santa Claus doesn't. As a matter of fact, it seem to me false that any concept must have a referent (observable or not), for the reason that Kant (and Hume gave) namely that existence is not a property, so that the no concept includes the notion of existence as part of itself. I'll agree with that.
Whether something exists (whether, that is, a concept has a referent) is a contingent matter which cannot be determined by the examination of the concept in question. Nothing, in other words must exist (which is, of course, to say that it is false that anything must exist). Hume put it well: "the idea of something as existing is identical with the concept of that thing". Or as Kant put it, "the concept of an existent 100 dollars contains not one dollar more than just the concept of 100 dollars".

Of course it is possible for a concept's referent to be a concept. For example, the referent of the concept of the concept of dog, is a concept. Namely the concept of dog. But the referent of the concept of dog, is dog. And, of course, the concept of unicorn fails to have a referent. But the concept of the concept of unicorn does, of course, have a referent. OK, this is clear.

So, the question, "What is the referent of the concept, god?" is a loaded question since it assumes that the concept, god, does have a referent. Atheists do not believe it does. Theists believe it does. And agnostics don't know whether it does. Like I said,
previously nothing was available from you to elucidate that the concept "god" had no referent, since it could be either invisible or non-existent, like numbers or unicorns.
The "load" of that question is the hidden assumption that every term (or at least, noun or noun phrase) has a referent. But that assumption is clearly false.

The medievals used to talk of the fallacy of, "unum nomen, unum nominatum ("for every name, a thing named") But not only is it false that all words refer ("although" "the" don't refer), but it is false that all referring terms (nouns and noun phrases) have referents. ("unicorn", "Santa Claus", "The Easter Bunny", etc.)

[kennethamy]

That's probably something untermensche may have been looking for.
To simplify:
Unlike the concept dog, which has a referent, the concept god does not have a referent.
Further, there is no concept called "god", there are many concepts called "god"

Because you also believe that some referents are not visible, like the referent "three". It seemed reasonable to infer you may have an invisible referent for "god".
I'll agree with that.
OK, this is clear.

Like I said,
previously nothing was available from you to elucidate that the concept "god" had no referent, since it could be either invisible or non-existent, like numbers or unicorns.

I had no idea that you expected such a declaration from me. I have not even yet declared that the concept of god has no referent. What I have declared is that like all concepts, it need not have a referent. I suppose, though, that if the concept of God has a referent, the referent, namely God, probably is invisible. But to say that something is invisible is not, of course, to say that there is no evidence for it. In the H.G. Wells novel, there was a lot of evidence for the existence of the invisible man.

[Chris Porter]

I had no idea that you expected such a declaration from me.

Untermensche asked, "Tell me one thing for certain about this concept god."


I have not even yet declared that the concept of god has no referent. What I have declared is that like all concepts, it need not have a referent. I suppose, though, that if the concept of God has a referent, the referent, namely God, probably is invisible. But to say that something is invisible is not, of course, to say that there is no evidence for it. In the H.G. Well's novel, there was a lot of evidence for the existence of the invisible man.

[kennethamy]

Untermensche asked, "Tell me one thing for certain about this concept god."

About which concept of God. One thing certain about any concept of god is that it is a concept of god. Will that do?

But what has U's question (such as it is) have to do with whether or not I think that the concept of God has a referent? This thread, never all that firmly in my grasp, is starting to slip-fast!

[kennethamy]

You care because that is the position of the other side.

If god exists, then by the most SIMPLE logic, god predates human culture.

So if some genius wants to claim god exists, all they need do is prove god predates human culture, since this is a logical necessity of the concept.

God predates human culture (I suppose) but what has that to do with the concept of God? Really, Untermenche, can't you keep the concept and what the concept is about, separate? Maybe the concept of God implies that God existed before everything, but it doesn't imply that the concept of God existed before everything. God is no more identical with the concept of God, than the Eiffel Tower is identical with the Eiffel Tower.

[untermensche]

God predates human culture (I suppose) but what has that to do with the concept of God? Really, Untermenche, can't you keep the concept and what the concept is about, separate? Maybe the concept of God implies that God existed before everything, but it doesn't imply that the concept of God existed before everything. God is no more identical with the concept of God, than the Eiffel Tower is identical with the Eiffel Tower.
God predates human culture?

You can demontrate this?

[Hoodoo Ulove]

God predates human culture?

You can demontrate this?I was waiting for you to call him on that one, underman. Does the "I suppose" get him off the hook? Sayiing God has the property "predating culture" clearly implies he (He, I should say), exists.

[untermensche]

I was waiting for you to call him on that one, underman. Does the "I suppose" get him off the hook? Sayiing God has the property "predating culture" clearly implies he (He, I should say), exists.
I think you see the power of this line of argument.

[kennethamy]

I think you see the power of this line of argument.

I don't. You just confuse the concept of God with God.

[untermensche]

I don't. You just confuse the concept of God with God.
Your line of questioning shows me you don't have a clue.

I think others can see it.

If you don't, keep growing, maybe someday you will.

[Hoodoo Ulove]

I don't. You just confuse the concept of God with God.But really, do you think that God predates culture? If you think God exists, you wouldn't say "I suppose", I suppose. And If you don't think God exists, why would you say God predates culture? Was it just a slip?

Yes, I know this is off the point. Just curious

[kennethamy]

But really, do you think that God predates culture? If you think God exists, you wouldn't say "I suppose", I suppose. And If you don't think God exists, why would you say God predates culture? Was it just a slip?

Yes, I know this is off the point. Just curious

"I suppose" just meant, "I suppose that if God exists, then God predates culture". I suppose that's a little awkward, though.

But Untermenche seems to think (and heaven only knows what he really thinks!) that if someone holds that God exists, then he would have to hold that the concept of God predates culture. (Heaven only knows why, except that perhaps the confusion between concept and object has taken hold). But since it is impossible that the concept of God could predate culture, God could not predate culture. And if God does not predate culture, then God does not exist.

So there is a kind of constant slippage between concept of God and God, but a kind of reverse recovery to the distinction. It is very confused.

1. If God exists, then the concept of God exists.
2. But if the concept of God exists, then the concept of God would predate culture. (Why? Because God would have to predate culture, and here there is a kind of identification between the concept and the object)
3. But the concept of God cannot predate culture.
4. Therefore, God cannot predate culture.
5. But if God does not predate culture, then God does not exist.
Therefore, God does not exist (from 4 and 5). Of course, the move from 3 to 4 is rather mad

That seems to be Untermenche's argument (such as it is).

(It's kind of interesting to ferret out the confusions in this kind of thing. I used to have to do it professionally)

[untermensche]

But Untermenche seems to think (and heaven only knows what he really thinks!) that if someone holds that God exists, then he would have to hold that the concept of God predates culture.
My position is: If somebody claims god exists, they must be able to demonstrate in some way that god predates human culture, because within the concept of god is the unyeilding prerequisite that god predates human existence.

Since god is the thing responsible for human existence.

[kennethamy]

God predates human culture?

You can demontrate this?

Of course not. But if God exists, then God predates human culture. I suppose that's true. But clearly the concept of God does not predate human culture. But what is that suppose to imply about God? That God (if He exists) does not predate human culture? Of course not. The concept of mountain does not predate human culture, but mountains do.

But look U. I have tried to capture your argument in post 51. It is a terrible argument. But is it yours? I am curious?

[untermensche]

Of course not. But if God exists, then God predates human culture. I suppose that's true. But clearly the concept of God does not predate human culture. But what is that suppose to imply about God? That God (if He exists) does not predate human culture? Of course not. The concept of mountain does not predate human culture, but mountains do.

But look U. I have tried to capture your argument in post 51. It is a terrible argument. But is it yours? I am curious?
Your misunderstandings do not a good or terrible argument make.

[kennethamy]

My position is: If somebody claims god exists, they must be able to demonstrate in some way that god predates human culture, because within the concept of god is the unyeilding prerequisite that god predates human existence.

Since god is the thing responsible for human existence.


O.K. Here goes, U.

1. Within the concept of God is the unyielding prerequisite that God is an eternal being.
Therefore, 2. if God exists, then God is eternal
3. If God is eternal, the God predates human culture (which, of course, is not eternal).

4. Therefore, if God exists, then God predates human culture.

So, I have demonstrated that God predates human culture. If, of course, God exists.

But that is exactly what you asked for. You asked that if someone claimed that God exists, that he can demonstrate that God predated human culture. And that is what I just did. Any objection? Next?

[untermensche]

O.K. Here goes, U.

1. Within the concept of God is the unyielding prerequisite that God is an eternal being.
Therefore, 2. if God exists, then God is eternal
3. If God is eternal, the God predates human culture (which, of course, is not eternal).

4. Therefore, if God exists, then God predates human culture.

So, I have demonstrated that God predates human culture. If, of course, God exists.

But that is exactly what you asked for. You asked that if someone claimed that God exists, that he can demonstrate that God predated human culture. And that is what I just did. Any objection? Next?
I see a huge "if" right in the middle of your proof that invalidates the whole thing.

The question is that "if".

And somehow you assume it.

The extreme flight from logic is amazing.

[kennethamy]

I see a huge "if" right in the middle of your proof that invalidates the whole thing.

The question is that "if".

And somehow you assume it.

The extreme flight from logic is amazing.

But that is exactly what you asked for. You asked that if someone claimed that God exists, that he can demonstrate that God predated human culture. And that is what I just did.

There is that "if" : the 12th word in the first sentence. That's what you requested: IF someone claims that God exists, that he should show that God predates culture. So, now, here I go- ready? I claim that God exists, and since, God must be eternal, God predates human culture.

Be careful what you ask for, U. You just got it.

What's wrong with that demonstration?

[untermensche]

But that is exactly what you asked for. You asked that if someone claimed that God exists, that he can demonstrate that God predated human culture. And that is what I just did.

There is that "if" : the 12th word in the first sentence. That's what you requested: IF someone claims that God exists, that he should show that God predates culture. So, now, here I go- ready? I claim that God exists, and since, God must be eternal, God predates human culture.

Be careful what you ask for, U. You just got it.

What's wrong with that demonstration?
Provide EVIDENCE that god predates human culture.

Do not simply make the claim and think you have done something.

[Hoodoo Ulove]

You asked that if someone claimed that God exists, that he can demonstrate that God predated human culture. And that is what I just did.No. What you did is demonstrate that if someone claimed that God exists, he has demonstrated that he claimed that God predated human culture. I'm sure U agrees with you on this.

[untermensche]

No. What you did is demonstrate that if someone claimed that God exists, he has demonstrated that he claimed that God predated human culture. I'm sure U agrees with you on this.
Yes, that is clearer.

To claim god exists is to claim god predates human culture at the same time.

So rather than asking for a proof that god exists, a proof, not claim, that god predates human culture would do.

And what you do is seperate yourself from this nonsense of being trapped discussing any aspect of god that postdates human culture. That is all immaterial to the burden of proof you are seeking.

[kennethamy]

No. What you did is demonstrate that if someone claimed that God exists, he has demonstrated that he claimed that God predated human culture. I'm sure U agrees with you on this.

The argument is:

1. If God exists, then God is eternal
2. God exists.
Therefore, 3. God is eternal (from 1 & 2 by modus ponens)

4. Human culture is not eternal.
5. If God is eternal, and human culture is not eternal, then God predates human culture.

6. God predates human culture. (From 3, 4, and 5, by conjunction and modus ponens)

The above argument does not imply that anyone is making any claims whatsoever. 2. in particular is only there "for the sake of argument".

1. God is eternal

2. Human culture is not eternal
4. God predates human culture
Therefore,

God predates human culture.

But what is that supposed to show about whether God exists? I thought that was the point of the exercise?

Surely not that God does not exist. What else is supposed to be the point? There is certainly one aspect of God (if there is a God) that predates human culture. It is that God predates human culture. I would imagine that another aspect of God that predates human culture is that God created the world, including human culture. (But what does "aspect of God" mean?)

[untermensche]

1. God is eternal

From which orifice does this come?

[kennethamy]

From which orifice does this come?

It is a part of the the definition of "God". In other words, it is part of the Christian-Judaic-Islamic conception of God.

[untermensche]

It is a part of the the definition of "God". In other words, it is part of the Christian-Judaic-Islamic conception of God.
When did it become something that did not have to proven, and could simply be taken as some premis in the middle of your muddled argument?

[Hoodoo Ulove]

But what is that supposed to show about whether God exists? I thought that was the point of the exercise?I think both you and u agree that no one has in this thread demonstrated that God does or does not exist, though he apparently believes you are trying to do so. His mistake is understandable, given such as this:So, now, here I go- ready? I claim that God exists, and since, God must be eternal, God predates human culture.

[kennethamy]

When did it become something that did not have to proven, and could simply be taken as some premis in the middle of your muddled argument?

Prove what? That something is part of the concept of God?

god (gd) Pronunciation Key
n.
God
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

American Heritage Dictionary. Other dictionaries, I think, include eternal in the list of properties which God is supposed to have.

You are, as usual, confusing the concept of God with God. I am talking about the concept of God. And, included in the concept of God are the characteristics of perfection, omnipotence, and so on. And, if there is something which is the object of this concept, then that Being would have those characteristics. Don't you understand that?

I am not asserting (or claiming) that there is such an object. Only that such an object, if there is one, would have those characteristics. What is so hard about understanding that?

[untermensche]

Prove what? That something is part of the concept of God?

god (gd) Pronunciation Key
n.
God
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.

American Heritage Dictionary. Other dictionaries, I think, include eternal in the list of properties which God is supposed to have.

You are, as usual, confusing the concept of God with God. I am talking about the concept of God. And, included in the concept of God are the characteristics of perfection, omnipotence, and so on. And, if there is something which is the object of this concept, then that Being would have those characteristics. Don't you understand that?

I am not asserting (or claiming) that there is such an object. Only that such an object, if there is one, would have those characteristics. What is so hard about understanding that?
So you think stating some attribute about the concept of god is a logical premis to continue an argument proving the existence of god?

Don't you have to prove the existence of the attribute first?

My point in this thread, by the way.

[kennethamy]

So you think stating some attribute about the concept of god is a logical premis to continue an argument proving the existence of god?

Don't you have to prove the existence of the attribute first?

My point in this thread, by the way.

I never tried to prove that God exists. Where did you get that from? I did present an argument whose conclusion was that God exists, and it was, I believe, a valid argument. But the fact that an argument is valid does not mean that the argument proves the conclusion. The premises have to be true as well. And I never claimed that the premises were true.

[untermensche]

I never tried to prove that God exists. Where did you get that from? I did present an argument whose conclusion was that God exists, and it was, I believe, a valid argument. But the fact that an argument is valid does not mean that the argument proves the conclusion. The premises have to be true as well. And I never claimed that the premises were true.
You have tried to prove nothing. Deconstructed nothing. Defined the logic of nothing.

In effect, added nothing.

[kennethamy]

You have tried to prove nothing. Deconstructed nothing. Defined the logic of nothing.

In effect, added nothing.

Have you nothing to say?

[untermensche]

Have you nothing to say?
Perhaps I am not objective.

But it seems you spend more effort misrepresenting my positions than examining them.

[kennethamy]

Perhaps I am not objective.

But it seems you spend more effort misrepresenting my positions than examining them.

I would say it is impossible to misrepresent your positions.

[untermensche]

I would say it is impossible to misrepresent your positions.

One example:
Originally Posted by untermensche
You basically asserted; a concept is a concept.

And I have said that they are both CALLED concepts, but ARE different things.

I asked you to tell me something certain about the concept god. Not something contingent.
Something certain? Sure. About the Christian concept of God, it is certain that according to that concept, God is the creator of the Universe.
I clearly said "something certain about the concept of god".

This somehow gets twisted into a misrepresentation of me asking about something certain about the "Christian concept of god".

The thing I don't know is if this twisting is deliberate, or the result of some genetic inability to reason.