Open Debate on God!!!

[Spenser]

After splashing around the infidels discussion forum I have learned a great deal about the God concept, arguments for and against God and better ways of presenting an argument. The God concept is nothing more than just that, a concept. It seems most atheists can see the merit in most atheistic arguments, the same arguments that have been around forever and greatly lack rebuttal. Theists on the other hand cannot agree on a multitude of arguments for God, much less a single definition of God. Also note that theistic arguments rise and fall, are rebirthed with twists, then once again fall. The ones that seem to pop up a lot in the philosophical field are the Ontological and Transcendental arguments, however they seem to be overly complicated masks for weak arguments.

I am going to go over a few problems with the existence of God and why it is more reasonable not to believe.

Atheism is the Default Position

...though this is hotly contested by many theists, it clearly true. First off atheism must be defined:

Atheism - Lacking belief in a God or Gods

It is not the denial of God as many theists will label it which of course asserts his existence then a positive claim of denial to a reality. Note this is different than claiming God does not exist which is a positive claim of a negative statement.

Its simple, we start with nothing. What do we have so far? Nothing. We then take what we can observe, the universe. What do we have? The universe. At this point we are atheists because we lack belief in anything other than what we have observed. What evidence do we need of the universe? Well its all right there for us to observe. This is where I stop, the universe has been proved to exist. Take it one step further and add to the equation that God created it and now you have the concept of theism, however until some sort of REAL evidence in support of God becomes apparent you cannot call it the default position. Atheism precedes theism.

For all you theists thinking "BULL SHIT!" Or "Why not agnosticism or pantheism?" Let's show you the absurdity of thinking otherwise. Prior to your parents telling you that Santa Clause exists, you lacked belief in Santa. The concept of Santa had to be introduced into the equation before you could consider anything other than a lack of belief in such a thing. Lack of belief is the default position. No one would say "Why not an agnostic stance towards Santa or Elfism???" That's just silliness.

Since Theism is a positive statement that God exists, it requires the burden of proof. This kills it for all you who think to say "Prove God doesn't exist!" or "You can't prove God doesn't exist!!!" Now this is also silly. Anything that does not exists you cannot prove doesn't exist simply for the mere reason that it doesn't exist. There is nothing to work with to prove its nonexistence. This is why I made the statement earlier that saying 'God doesn't exist' is a positive claim on a negative statement (notice the 'not'). Positive claims about reality, about positive statements (IE God exists) are the ones that require proof.

Face it, no one should be expected to prove that leprechauns, antigravity devices, invisible pink unicorns or Canadians that don't say 'eh' exist right? It is more than reasonable to state that they do not until evidence is presented otherwise. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, of which theists have none.

Atheism is the default position and the burden of proof remains in the hands of the theists.

Defining God

To truly debate the topic we must do what many theists are unwilling to do to a satisfactory level and by and far do not agree upon with themselves. God is generally defined as omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, and personal. This means all powerful, all knowing, morally perfect, everywhere, and much like us as we were made in his image. An omnimax God in its rawest definition is completely self contradictory and destroyed with simple arguments such as:

Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it.

If he can't do either he's not omnipotent. Same goes for this one:

Can God create a square circle.

Then there is this:

Does God know what it feels like to be purely human?

How can he, he cannot know what anything feels like with out also being God at the same time. If he can't know it, he's not omniscient.

Due to problems like these, more intelligent theists postulate the greatest possible being GPB. Meaning God is omnipotent in the extent that he can do anything that is actually possible. Even though he cannot create an unmarried bachelor it is not a contradiction with his omnipotence. It also yields to the fact that there are things that are impossible. Same goes for omniscience, God knows all things that are possible to know.

Why go over this? Because it is in the theists favor and for the sake of argument that God be defined as the GPB rather than Omnimax in its brute definition. Otherwise he's already been easily refuted...

So at this point I will stop for now but continue on in future posts. After reading this I challenge anyone to put forth an argument for God, offer up any evidence what so ever for his existence, give a varying definition of God, or comment on anything I have said thus far.

[RTS]

Actually there is one logical possible definition for a "God - Creator of the universe" which is provable in reality. Everything in the universe could have come from unintelligent, pantheistic Gods/designers, trillions of them, where each designer (God) would consist of the dumbest possible entity needing only "knowledge" of one or two things (to react or not to react).

Each God/designer here would consist of a subatomic particle. Thus we could have an entire universe built from many unintelligent Gods. This is the only logical way "Gods" could possibly exist. This would also explain their silence, and agrees perfectly with the science of physics.

Therefore, the only logical possibility is that God is a dumb subatomic particle that knew only one or two things (to react or not to react).

I detail these aspects of the arguments for the existence of God in my thread "The cognitive content of God"

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60252

Otherwise, "God" is nothing but a contrived notion within the imagination/mind of the definer.

[Whispers]

Good post.

The issue at root, at least as I see it, is as follows....

No-one will or can ever PROVE the existence of God to you. It cannot be done in reality, and especially on a forum. As I write this, thousands of people all over the world are debating these types of issue on the net. They are argueing, learning, cross-examing one another, and yet how could God be proved to you? How?

The world over....................................The finer points of logical debate are explored....people advise one another when a fallacy had been offered....theists present their case to include personal testimony.....atheists present theirs...and so it goes on....

Wars happen.....people argue in a bar.....a couple divorce because he loses his faith and she cannot take it.......a little boy is ridiculed in class because he admits that he goes to church....fanatics blow themselves up and strangers because they believe that God requires/demands it.....atheists on forums act smug when tearing down anothers position, safe in the knowledge that they have no position themselves to defend......theists act like they KNOW what God wants/thinks and says, and then JUDGE others for doing what they do themselves, when nreally they do not know what god wants/thinks and says......

Do you see? Its all bullshit......just people spinning about, talking, rowing, debating, learning logical form, philosophy, and yet strangely not necessarily learning real truth.....lots of theories about truth, but not real truth...

Its been happening for time, and it will continue for time.....

Let me spell it out for you......Noone will prove to you that God exists, and it cannot nor should it have to be proved that he does not.

End of mild rant :p

[Heathen Dawn]

What makes me a convinced atheist is how much the world makes sense without God. The theory of gods answers few existing questions and raises a lot more of new ones. Surveying the fates of all creatures and men, how they run according to ruthless contingency and not according to any appointed plan, I can be sure there is no god controlling the whole state of affairs.

And on a personal note - I am a Jew - the Holocaust, I think, defies all attempts at theodicy. The Jews have served this idol for centuries, and look how it has saved them! No god will save us - we must save ourselves.

[Scandal]

Whispers,

Good post.....

:)

[Philosoft]

"Creator of the universe" is not an acceptable definition for "God." Here's why:

a) God is the creator of the universe.

b) God created the universe.

What is the semantic distinction between a & b? Nothing. a is a passive rendering of b. And, since b shows us that the subject "God" is assumed to have been defined, a fails as a definition.

[xorbie]

I am really not so sure that atheism is a default argument or position at all. Look at were Theism started from - people being curious and needing explanations for all that they found in the universe around them. If you were to be born and raised outside of society, might you to not grow up and believe in God?

Of couse, science provides an alternative to God, which seems to be much more provable in the classical sense and much more reliable on good 'ole Planet Earth. But I am not convinced that this makes atheism the default position.

Also, the stupid rock argument is just that - stupid. If anything, it proves the limits of human understanding and semantics, but nothing about God's power.

[copernicus]

Originally posted by Philosoft
"Creator of the universe" is not an acceptable definition for "God." Here's why:
a) God is the creator of the universe.
b) God created the universe.
What is the semantic distinction between a & b? Nothing. a is a passive rendering of b. And, since b shows us that the subject "God" is assumed to have been defined, a fails as a definition.
Philosoft, I cannot make sense of your argument. First of all, "creator of the universe" is a nominalization, not a passive. Grammar aside, though, both sentences mean very different things. (a) tells you a unique property of the entity named "God", and (b) names an event in which the entity named "God" plays the agentive role. Why would (b) rule out (a) as a definition?

What may be going on here is that you are somehow trying to apply a substitution test of some kind, such that "God created the universe" becomes "The creator of the universe created the universe", which is clearly a vacuous tautology. Have you ever read Frege's essay "Sense and Reference"? It lays out the problems with this line of reasoning. Just guessing here. Sorry if I misconstrued your argument.

[Philosoft]

Originally posted by copernicus
Philosoft, I cannot make sense of your argument. First of all, "creator of the universe" is a nominalization, not a passive.
I don't know about a nominalization; "creator of the universe" is a noun phrase, I believe. And, "God is the creator of the universe" is certainly a passive voice phrasing.
Grammar aside, though, both sentences mean very different things. (a) tells you a unique property of the entity named "God", and (b) names an event in which the entity named "God" plays the agentive role. Why would (b) rule out (a) as a definition?
Because "creator of the universe" isn't a property; it's a noun phrasing of the verb phrase, "created the universe."
What may be going on here is that you are somehow trying to apply a substitution test of some kind, such that "God created the universe" becomes "The creator of the universe created the universe", which is clearly a vacuous tautology.
I don't think it's necessary to even make that argument.
Have you ever read Frege's essay "Sense and Reference"? It lays out the problems with this line of reasoning. Just guessing here. Sorry if I misconstrued your argument.
I'll have to check it out.

[RTS]

Originally posted by Philosoft
"Creator of the universe" is not an acceptable definition for "God." Here's why:

a) God is the creator of the universe.

b) God created the universe.

What is the semantic distinction between a & b? Nothing. a is a passive rendering of b. And, since b shows us that the subject "God" is assumed to have been defined, a fails as a definition.

To me this is pure psycho-babble. The difference between a statement stated in an active voice (simple past tense) or a passive voice does not invalidate the "God - Creator of the universe" statement as "acceptable". One presumes a subject; the other predicates the subject. Neither invalidates the subject as an acceptable definition.

Maybe I missed something in my interpretation or the translation... I'm not an English major but philosophically your argument appears hollow, so, educate me...

[pariah]

Originally posted by RTS
Actually there is one logical possible definition for a "God - Creator of the universe" which is provable in reality. Everything in the universe could have come from unintelligent, pantheistic Gods/designers, trillions of them, where each designer (God) would consist of the dumbest possible entity needing only "knowledge" of one or two things (to react or not to react).

Each God/designer here would consist of a subatomic particle. Thus we could have an entire universe built from many unintelligent Gods. This is the only logical way "Gods" could possibly exist. This would also explain their silence, and agrees perfectly with the science of physics.

Therefore, the only logical possibility is that God is a dumb subatomic particle that knew only one or two things (to react or not to react).

I detail these aspects of the arguments for the existence of God in my thread "The cognitive content of God"

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=60252

Otherwise, "God" is nothing but a contrived notion within the imagination/mind of the definer.

And the point of calling them God is??

Whispers:

Let me spell it out for you......Noone will prove to you that God exists, and it cannot nor should it have to be proved that he does not.


How many times must we say, it is irrelevant whether something can be disproven or not.

[RTS]

Originally posted by copernicus
Philosoft, I cannot make sense of your argument. First of all, "creator of the universe" is a nominalization, not a passive. Grammar aside, though, both sentences mean very different things. (a) tells you a unique property of the entity named "God", and (b) names an event in which the entity named "God" plays the agentive role. Why would (b) rule out (a) as a definition?

What may be going on here is that you are somehow trying to apply a substitution test of some kind, such that "God created the universe" becomes "The creator of the universe created the universe", which is clearly a vacuous tautology. Have you ever read Frege's essay "Sense and Reference"? It lays out the problems with this line of reasoning. Just guessing here. Sorry if I misconstrued your argument.

Thank you for a more educated response than I could have detailed.

[copernicus]

Originally posted by Philosoft
I don't know about a nominalization; "creator of the universe" is a noun phrase, I believe. And, "God is the creator of the universe" is certainly a passive voice phrasing.

A nominalization is simply the process of creating a noun from a verb stem. So the word "creator" is an agent nominaliztion of the verb "to create".

You don't understand the grammatical term "passive". It can only apply to a transitive verb like "create". So the sentence "The universe was created by God" is the passive of the active sentence "God created the universe". The sentence "God is the creator of the universe" cannot be a passive construction because the only verb in the sentence is "is", and "is" is not a transitive verb.

Again, I don't think that your argument has anything at all to do with grammar, which is a distraction. But it is confusing on semantic grounds.

[Cross Examiner]

Heathen Dawn,

And on a personal note - I am a Jew - the Holocaust, I think, defies all attempts at theodicy. The Jews have served this idol for centuries, and look how it has saved them! No god will save us - we must save ourselves.

Respectfully, I would certainly agree with you on this point if one could only remenisce about the now-extinct people historians call "the Jews." I know many Jews. I'll bet you all know many Jews as well. Conversely, how many Hittites, Canaanites, Edomites, or Moabites do you know? Scythians? Osgoths? Minoans? Olmecs? Certainly the Jews, as a people, have been the object of enough targeted persecution to be number one on the should-not-exist-yet-for-some-reason-still-do list.

Regards,
BGic

[HRG]

Originally posted by Philosoft
"Creator of the universe" is not an acceptable definition for "God." Here's why:

a) God is the creator of the universe.

b) God created the universe.

What is the semantic distinction between a & b? Nothing. a is a passive rendering of b. And, since b shows us that the subject "God" is assumed to have been defined, a fails as a definition.

Beg to differ. It is an acceptable definition if existence and uniqueness of a creator of the universe have been demonstrated; then "God" is simply a label for that entity.

Regards,
HRG.

[Philosoft]

Originally posted by HRG
Beg to differ. It is an acceptable definition if existence and uniqueness of a creator of the universe have been demonstrated; then "God" is simply a label for that entity.
Right. Though I'm fairly certain this doesn't affect my argument, as I was assuming a previously undefinied or unidentified entitiy.

[Philosoft]

Originally posted by copernicus
A nominalization is simply the process of creating a noun from a verb stem. So the word "creator" is an agent nominaliztion of the verb "to create".
I had thought "nominalize" specifically referred to name-creation. Very well.
You don't understand the grammatical term "passive". It can only apply to a transitive verb like "create". So the sentence "The universe was created by God" is the passive of the active sentence "God created the universe". The sentence "God is the creator of the universe" cannot be a passive construction because the only verb in the sentence is "is", and "is" is not a transitive verb.
Yes, I make this mistake entirely too much. "Is" is in fact a linking verb. But I'm not sure it matters.
Again, I don't think that your argument has anything at all to do with grammar, which is a distraction. But it is confusing on semantic grounds.
Okay, let me try a different angle.

Suppose someone asks you, "What is Philosoft?" and this person had never met me or seen a photo/heard my voice/etc. You answer, "Philosoft is the buyer of the blue Honda." This offers no information about the attributes we normally associate with identifiable things. If you show her a picture of me, she is able to mentally associate "Philosoft" with "buying a blue Honda."

Likewise, if I am told God is the creator of the universe, I have nothing to mentally associate with universe creation. That "definition" assumes I already have a thinkable concept of God to associate with "create the universe."

[Whispers]

Originally posted by pariahSS
How many times must we say, it is irrelevant whether something can be disproven or not.

You may need to say it a few more times.... =)

Can you explain further? Thanks...

[markfiend]

pariahSS
How many times must we say, it is irrelevant whether something can be disproven or not.
Whispers
You may need to say it a few more times.... =)

Can you explain further? Thanks...

Can I prove that leprechauns do not exist? No. But there is still no reason for an a-leprechaunist to believe in leprechauns, because we see no evidence of them.

Similarly, I see no evidence of gods, and despite being unable to prove the non-existence of them, I have no reason to believe.

[Whispers]

Originally posted by markfiend
Can I prove that leprechauns do not exist? No. But there is still no reason for an a-leprechaunist to believe in leprechauns, because we see no evidence of them.

Similarly, I see no evidence of gods, and despite being unable to prove the non-existence of them, I have no reason to believe.

Totally agree with you. Did you not understand what I said earlier?....


it cannot *nor should it have to be* proved that he does not.

[Hedshaker]

Whispers,

Do you agree that religious indoctrination should be kept out of schools?

[Whispers]

Originally posted by bornyetagain
Whispers,

Do you agree that religious indoctrination should be kept out of schools?


This is a tricky one. I feel that religious families should have the option to send their children to religious schools, and in a similar vein, atheist parents should be able to send their own children to schools with no religious agenda.

[markfiend]

Originally posted by Whispers
Totally agree with you. Did you not understand what I said earlier?....

it cannot *nor should it have to be* proved that he does not.

OK, I'm glad we're in agreement :D Maybe I didn't understand. Or at least missed the point.

I was trying to answer the "Can you explain further?" you asked of pariahSS. *shrug*

[Hedshaker]

Originally posted by Whispers
This is a tricky one. I feel that religious families should have the option to send their children to religious schools, and in a similar vein, atheist parents should be able to send their own children to schools with no religious agenda.

Hi Whispers.

That would seem to be the ideal solution but I'm not sure whether its that simple.

Parents with a stong religeous bent generally indoctrinate their children for themselves ie. Sunday school, bible study etc. without the need for further indoctrination at school, would you not agree? It's the rest that worries me. The don't know's and or don't care's, not to mention thinking agnostics and atheists.

But the issue (without trying to hijack this thread :) ) is about poluting young minds before they are old enough to make up their own minds.

Religeous education IMHO should address all religions but not from a stand point of indoctrination. Would that not be a better solution?

Just a thought :(

bya

[rainbow walking]

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
Heathen Dawn,



Respectfully, I would certainly agree with you on this point if one could only remenisce about the now-extinct people historians call "the Jews." I know many Jews. I'll bet you all know many Jews as well. Conversely, how many Hittites, Canaanites, Edomites, or Moabites do you know? Scythians? Osgoths? Minoans? Olmecs? Certainly the Jews, as a people, have been the object of enough targeted persecution to be number one on the should-not-exist-yet-for-some-reason-still-do list.

Regards,
BGic

The very rational explanation for that is due entirely to the Jewish dogged detrmination to sustain a theocratic identity. The other tribes you mention, as they were conquered and assimilated into the conquering peoples, lost their national identity but I'm sure their bloodline still exists, just like th Assyrian bloodline still exists today and identifies itself with Christianity, due, in large part, to a visit by a Jewish prophet by the name of Jonah.

[RTS]

Philosoft,

I went back and re-read my original post, and I think I know where the confusion occurred. And this confusion was entirely caused by my ambiguity in stating the first sentence:

original quote by RTS
"Actually there is one logical possible definition for a "God - Creator of the universe" which is provable in reality. "

I should have written "God/Creator of the universe". This would delineate synonymous labels. The definition for those synonymous labels followed:

"Everything in the universe could have come from unintelligent, pantheistic Gods/designers, trillions of them, where each designer (God) would consist of the dumbest possible entity needing only "knowledge" of one or two things (to react or not to react).

Each God/designer here would consist of a subatomic particle. Thus we could have an entire universe built from many unintelligent Gods. This is the only logical way "Gods" could possibly exist. This would also explain their silence, and agrees perfectly with the science of physics.

Therefore, the only logical possibility is that God is a dumb subatomic particle that knew only one or two things (to react or not to react)."

My apologies. Hope this clears up some of the misunderstandings.

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
Respectfully, I would certainly agree with you on this point if one could only remenisce about the now-extinct people historians call "the Jews." I know many Jews. I'll bet you all know many Jews as well. Conversely, how many Hittites, Canaanites, Edomites, or Moabites do you know? Scythians? Osgoths? Minoans? Olmecs? Certainly the Jews, as a people, have been the object of enough targeted persecution to be number one on the should-not-exist-yet-for-some-reason-still-do list.


Yeah, I've heard this before: the Jews are still here, therefore God exists. It rather seems to me this points to a sadistic God who kept the Jewish nation alive in order to torture them constantly.

The survival of the Jews can be explained naturalistically. The dietary laws, which kept the Jews distinct, had a lot to do with it. And naturalism also explains why so many Jews were put to death during the Holocaust, with no-one any the more merciful to answer their cries of help.

[copernicus]

Originally posted by Philosoft
Okay, let me try a different angle.

Suppose someone asks you, "What is Philosoft?" and this person had never met me or seen a photo/heard my voice/etc. You answer, "Philosoft is the buyer of the blue Honda." This offers no information about the attributes we normally associate with identifiable things. If you show her a picture of me, she is able to mentally associate "Philosoft" with "buying a blue Honda."
That sounds something like the answer to a Jeopardy question, but I'm ok with this scenario. :)

Likewise, if I am told God is the creator of the universe, I have nothing to mentally associate with universe creation. That "definition" assumes I already have a thinkable concept of God to associate with "create the universe."
What is the problem? I'm sure that you know what a universe is, and you must have some ideas about what "universe creation" means to most people. What is wrong with the concept of a magical being that caused the universe to come into existence by supernatural prestidigitation? You may think that the idea is preposterous. I certainly do. But to make that judgment, you have to have some idea of what the words mean. Are you suggesting that we can't imagine preposterous ideas? That's no fun. ;)

[theghostinthemachine]

Hello Spenser.

First of all, you are wrong. Atheism is not the default position. If lack of belief is the default position, then why do you accept tautologies, or self-evident truths? Why do you accept that you were not created five minutes ago complete with memories as opposed to lacking belief? But before we go any further down this road, let me ask you a simple question.

Is there any rule in logic that states that atheism is the default position?

[Steven Carr]

Originally posted by theghostinthemachine
Hello Spenser.

Is there any rule in logic that states that atheism is the default position?

Throughout history the majority of people have not believed in a Christian god.

I doubt if the majority of people throughout history have been monotheists.

So the 'default' condition of the human mind appears to be one of polytheism.

[theghostinthemachine]

Originally posted by Steven Carr
Throughout history the majority of people have not believed in a Christian god.

I doubt if the majority of people throughout history have been monotheists.

So the 'default' condition of the human mind appears to be one of polytheism.

Hello Steve.

Is there a rule in logic which states that atheism is the default positon?

[Steven Carr]

Originally posted by theghostinthemachine
Hello Spenser.

Is there any rule in logic that states that atheism is the default position?

Surely the default position is that nature is natural.

[Normal]

Originally posted by Spenser
It seems most atheists can see the merit in most atheistic arguments, the same arguments that have been around forever and greatly lack rebuttal.

Could you list these arguments with numbered premises? Even one will do for now.

Originally posted by Spenser
Its simple, we start with nothing.

Not quite. You start with learning, thinking, adapting, understanding, accepting, rejecting, etc. By the time you try to pinpoint what exactly you started with, you are already using so many functions of intellect that you didn't start with.

Originally posted by Spenser
We then take what we can observe, the universe. What do we have? The universe.

"The universe" is a pretty broad term. In actuality all you can "observe" are your senses.

Originally posted by Spenser
At this point we are atheists because we lack belief in anything other than what we have observed.

Some may say at this point you are a theist because you claim to have authority on differentiating truth from fiction. Commiting to one belief or another is presuppositing a fundamental truth underlying everything.

Originally posted by Spenser
What evidence do we need of the universe? Well its all right there for us to observe. This is where I stop, the universe has been proved to exist.

No, your senses are there for you to observe. That you commit to the belief in this thing you call the "universe" could easily label you a theist.

Originally posted by Spenser
Atheism precedes theism.

Atheism only precedes theism because belief comes after cognition. You can see before you can distinguish images. Is that a convincing case for atheism? Hardly.

Originally posted by Spenser
Prior to your parents telling you that Santa Clause exists, you lacked belief in Santa.

Santa Claus is fundamentally different from god, however. People equate god with absolute truth, and that to posit a belief of any kind is to presuppose the existence of absolute truth, so by stating "I don't believe in god", you are contradicting yourself.

Originally posted by Spenser
Positive claims about reality, about positive statements (IE God exists) are the ones that require proof.

Positive claims about reality can only be made if god exists. Refute that please.

Originally posted by Spenser
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, of which theists have none.

Is the claim "god is the measure of absolute truth and any claims about reality presuppose the existence of god" lacking evidence for you?

Originally posted by Spenser
An omnimax God in its rawest definition is completely self contradictory and destroyed with simple arguments such as:

Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it.

Wrong, this has been dealt with numerous times before. You cannot attach an ability with the word "can't" in it to an omnipotent being, doing such will fundamentally reject the word "omnipotence".

Originally posted by Spenser
Can God create a square circle.

What is a square circle?

Originally posted by Spenser
Does God know what it feels like to be purely human?

Why not? Is it necessarily to be only human to know what it means to be purely human? If we work out every single chemical reaction going on in a bat's biological system, do we not know what it's like to be purely a bat?

[HRG]

Originally posted by Normal
<snip>
Santa Claus is fundamentally different from god, however. People equate god with absolute truth,

And by this they commit a semantic error. "Absolute truth" is an abstract concept - actually belongíng to metalanguage", while god is supposed to be a really existing entity. Equating him to absolute truth is more than a blatant attempt to hijack a concept for one's own side, it is a type violation - as programmers would call it.

That absolute truth is independent of any god is easy to see: the existence of infinitely many prime numbers is a piece of absolute truth, and would be true even if a supreme being tried to define it as false.

and that to posit a belief of any kind is to presuppose the existence of absolute truth,

Not at all. I can posit a belief within mathematical truth (e.g. the Riemann conjecture), within Christian truth, within Muslim truth, within scientific truth ...


so by stating "I don't believe in god", you are contradicting yourself.

No offense, but this is semantic flim-flam. I don't have to accept the semantic errors committed by others as a valid argument.

What does the indentifier "g-o-d" stand for in your terminology, anyway ? THe ground of being ? The creator of this universe ? The source of morality ? The fellow who failed to warn Adam and Eve about the serpent ? The definer of Absolute Truth ?

All these are different concepts, and should therefore be labelled with different identifiers.



Positive claims about reality can only be made if god exists. Refute that please.

Prove it first. I'd say quite the opposite: if a supernatural and powerful being exists, we can never be sure that it is not influencing our perceptions and memories, and thus deceives us about reality.

<snip>
Regards,
HRG.

[Steven Carr]

Originally posted by HRG


Prove it first. I'd say quite the opposite: if a supernatural and powerful being exists, we can never be sure that it is not influencing our perceptions and memories, and thus deceives us about reality.



Very true, especially when Christians insist that there are supernatural beings motivated to deceive us and our senses.

[Cross Examiner]

Originally posted by rainbow walking
The very rational explanation for that is due entirely to the Jewish dogged detrmination to sustain a theocratic identity.


Interesting, but didn't we only push this enigma back a step? Where do you suppose the "dogged determination to sustain a theocratic identity" came from, exactly? I'll buy your purely naturalistic sufficient cause if you can sell it rw.

Originally posted by rainbow walking
The other tribes you mention, as they were conquered and assimilated into the conquering peoples, lost their national identity but I'm sure their bloodline still exists, just like th Assyrian bloodline still exists today and identifies itself with Christianity, due, in large part, to a visit by a Jewish prophet by the name of Jonah.

Interesting theory. You think Jonah's (more Judaist) proclamation of impending judgment upon Nineveh led to the modern Assyrian association with Christianity? I'd be curious to hear more about this, if you have the time and inclination, of course.

Regards,
BGic

[Normal]

Originally posted by HRG
And by this they commit a semantic error. "Absolute truth" is an abstract concept - actually belongíng to metalanguage", while god is supposed to be a really existing entity. Equating him to absolute truth is more than a blatant attempt to hijack a concept for one's own side, it is a type violation - as programmers would call it.

An abstract concept or a potential existent? Why is absolute truth not a possible existing entity? It's not a type violation, it's a property, one of the prerequisits for existence.

Originally posted by HRG
That absolute truth is independent of any god is easy to see: the existence of infinitely many prime numbers is a piece of absolute truth, and would be true even if a supreme being tried to define it as false.

"There would be infinity prime numbers even if an omnimax being made it so there are finite prime numbers" is a non-sequitir.

Originally posted by HRG
Not at all. I can posit a belief within mathematical truth (e.g. the Riemann conjecture), within Christian truth, within Muslim truth, within scientific truth ...

It doesn't matter which truth you call it, it is an appeal to an absolute truth existing independant of your mind.

Originally posted by HRG
What does the indentifier "g-o-d" stand for in your terminology, anyway ? THe ground of being ? The creator of this universe ? The source of morality ? The fellow who failed to warn Adam and Eve about the serpent ? The definer of Absolute Truth ?

All these are different concepts, and should therefore be labelled with different identifiers.

Surely god has properties associated with him, and absolute truth is one of them. The existence of absolute truth is confirming one property of god, and therefore god exists.

Originally posted by HRG
Prove it first. I'd say quite the opposite: if a supernatural and powerful being exists, we can never be sure that it is not influencing our perceptions and memories, and thus deceives us about reality.

If no absolute truths existed then there would be no such thing as "deceived". Fiction and reality would be inseperatble.

[Philosoft]

Originally posted by copernicus
What is the problem? I'm sure that you know what a universe is,
Actually, I'm not sure I do. I certainly can't picture 'all unbounded space-time and matter' in my head.
and you must have some ideas about what "universe creation" means to most people.
Best I can do is 'poofing something into existence where there was nothing before.' Just don't ask me how to conceptualize "nothing" or "poofing."
What is wrong with the concept of a magical being that caused the universe to come into existence by supernatural prestidigitation? You may think that the idea is preposterous. I certainly do. But to make that judgment, you have to have some idea of what the words mean. Are you suggesting that we can't imagine preposterous ideas? That's no fun. ;)
I think it's preposterous in part because there are so many components of "universe creation by a willed being" that are literally unthinkable to me. I can't visualise God, I can't visualise a universe, I can't visualise "poofing." To me, it's all just a bunch of words that mean something when applied to something - "creating," "being," - but that lose all meaning when applied to everything. Like we're pretending that we know what we're talking about because we can analogise to thinkable concepts.

[Cross Examiner]

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
Yeah, I've heard this before: the Jews are still here, therefore God exists

I agree. Fortunately for the both of us, that is not my argument for the existence of God. Which'd be a pretty one-dimensional argument n'est-ce pas? However, the unique history and identity of the Jews is a fairly interesting topic by itself, without forcing such grand implications that "therefore God exist", though, eh?

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
It rather seems to me this points to a sadistic God who kept the Jewish nation alive in order to torture them constantly.

And when I was a younger man I used to think that my participation in the "double-days" of training to play American football, that occurred regularly during the off-season (read: high, hot summer), was sadistic torture inflicted upon us poor players by repressed, malevolent "coaches." I don't hold to that view currently. Perspectives can change when bad assumptions are revealed.

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
The survival of the Jews can be explained naturalistically. The dietary laws, which kept the Jews distinct, had a lot to do with it. And naturalism also explains why so many Jews were put to death during the Holocaust, with no-one any the more merciful to answer their cries of help.

Naturally eh? rainbow walking may chime in and save you from having to explain how "dietary laws" saved the Jews.

Originally posted by Heathen Dawn
And naturalism also explains why so many Jews were put to death during the Holocaust, with no-one any the more merciful to answer their cries of help.

What was God's promise to Abraham, exactly? Has that promise been fulfilled? How many times in the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets have the people cried out to God for salvation from their oppressors? What if God hopped-to every time Israel cried out? What if God asked me "how high" every time I said "jump!"? Just some questions, some thoughts, and nevermore [quoth the raven]. That means, don't take my questions as God exists: QED. Which just looks silly by itself.

Regards,
BGic

Oh, by the by, did you see "the Pianist?" It seems that Polanski has crystalized this issue in the line near the end of the movie, spoken by the compassionate German officer, Captain Hosenfeld: "Thank God, not me. He wants us to survive. Well, that's what we have to believe." Some see a God who allows the death of many while others see a God who saves many others from certain death. Perspective is an interesting thing.

[Volker]

Now here is my way to answer: "God exists, because you can't prove it otherwise!".

First, we accept that as true. If you can't prove X to be false, it must be true (that is silly, I know, but it is the way the argument works).

So we say:

(1) God exists.

This is true, because we can't prove the opposite. Now we formulate ist the other way round:

(2) God does not exist.

Using the same logic, it must be true, because we can't prove the opposite.

So, using this "logic", both (1) must be true and (2) must be true, too, but this cannot be. So this kind of logic must be wrong - if something proves A and ~A the same time, our logic must be wrong, no matter how convincing you find it. So it is proven that it is wrong to say that something must be true because you can't prove it to be wrong.

Its still astonishing how many people accept this wicked logic.

[Heathen Dawn]

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
And when I was a younger man I used to think that my participation in the "double-days" of training to play American football, that occurred regularly during the off-season (read: high, hot summer), was sadistic torture inflicted upon us poor players by repressed, malevolent "coaches." I don't hold to that view currently. Perspectives can change when bad assumptions are revealed.


Are you comparing constant pogroms and massacres to tough football coaching? That's human lives we're talking about! Thousands upon thousands of Jews living in constant fear and being killed off! That's what the state of Israel was founded for: to end this lunatic state of affairs!


Naturally eh? rainbow walking may chime in and save you from having to explain how "dietary laws" saved the Jews.


No thanks, I'm adept enough in Jewish history.


What was God's promise to Abraham, exactly? Has that promise been fulfilled? How many times in the Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets have the people cried out to God for salvation from their oppressors? What if God hopped-to every time Israel cried out? What if God asked me "how high" every time I said "jump!"?


I'd say six million Jews exterminated like insects is going WAY over the top for a loving God. It seems He loves the Chinese more than He loves Jews, look how many Chinese there are today, alive and well. If that's how God treats His chosen people, then excuse me. The Jewish people has eaten nothing but excrement from serving this silent God.

I may sound like I have an emotional argument, but this is really all a game, playing "what if He exists". In reality I don't believe in the existence of any gods, and it's much better that way - I don't have to resort to gymnastics of theodicy to explain away all the pain and evil in the world.


Oh, by the by, did you see "the Pianist?" It seems that Polanski has crystalized this issue in the line near the end of the movie, spoken by the compassionate German officer, Captain Hosenfeld: "Thank God, not me. He wants us to survive. Well, that's what we have to believe." Some see a God who allows the death of many while others see a God who saves many others from certain death. Perspective is an interesting thing.


How revealing: you look at the saved and overlook the unsaved. Well, I look at everyone, including the unsaved. One life lost is a whole universe lost.

[Cross Examiner]

Heathen Dawn,
Are you comparing constant pogroms and massacres to tough football coaching? That's human lives we're talking about! Thousands upon thousands of Jews living in constant fear and being killed off!

Of course not. Only that there is sometimes a reason, a greater purpose, behind difficulty and even death.

That's what the state of Israel was founded for: to end this lunatic state of affairs!

Case in point. I seriously doubt that the state of Israel would exist today without the horrors of the Holocaust.

No thanks, I'm adept enough in Jewish history.

Good. You can explain to me how "dietary laws" have saved the Jews from oppression and resultant extinction then?

I'd say six million Jews exterminated like insects is going WAY over the top for a loving God.

The problem of evil. We've a running thread here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1135509#post1135509) on the very thing. Is permitting death unloving of God? Are you certain that the victims of the Holocaust are nonexistent? Yes? How so?

He loves the Chinese more than He loves Jews, look how many Chinese there are today, alive and well.

Yes, but look how they live. The vast majority in squalor. Know how many of them were persecuted by Mao and his successors? How many of them know freedom today? Did you know the Chinese Christian church is the largest (and some argue the fastest growing) yet God does not "deliver" them from an oppressive government? Do not fear him who can destroy the body but Him who can destroy both body and soul.

If that's how God treats His chosen people, then excuse me. The Jewish people has eaten nothing but excrement from serving this silent God.

Have they? How many Hittites do you know today? Canaanites? How do you suppose the living standards of Jewish men stack up to other ethnic/religious groups, comparatively?

I may sound like I have an emotional argument, but this is really all a game, playing "what if He exists". In reality I don't believe in the existence of any gods, and it's much better that way - I don't have to resort to gymnastics of theodicy to explain away all the pain and evil in the world.

And you are free to reject God, to not believe in God. And do not think this is "gymnastics" for me. I have a different worldview and my responses flow accordingly. From my point of view, it is you all who bend and stretch to deny things like the apparent intelligent design of the universe, the very origin of the universe, the impossible rise of life from non-life etc. And many, many more. I don't foresee your worldview fitting reality or paying off in the end. But, free will. You are culpable for your decisions, that should be comforting to the atheist, to some degree. And if wrong about it all--you did it your way.

How revealing: you look at the saved and overlook the unsaved. Well, I look at everyone, including the unsaved. One life lost is a whole universe lost.

I? Or do you mean Polanski? It is not my movie. And who is "lost" exactly?

And it is good that care you for the one. So does God (1 Peter). Just don't assume that suffering or death is the worst fate that can befall a man. If God is, then there are certainly worse things. It is a dangerous assumption that because the world is not such that you'd have it that God is not, therefore.

Some thoughts.

Regards,
BGic

[Spenser]

I've been wanting to continue on with this post but have been busy. Hopefully I'll have a bit of time next week... ;)

[copernicus]

Copernicus: What is wrong with the concept of a magical being that caused the universe to come into existence by supernatural prestidigitation? You may think that the idea is preposterous. I certainly do. But to make that judgment, you have to have some idea of what the words mean. Are you suggesting that we can't imagine preposterous ideas? That's no fun. ;)

I think it's preposterous in part because there are so many components of "universe creation by a willed being" that are literally unthinkable to me. I can't visualise God, I can't visualise a universe, I can't visualise "poofing." To me, it's all just a bunch of words that mean something when applied to something - "creating," "being," - but that lose all meaning when applied to everything. Like we're pretending that we know what we're talking about because we can analogise to thinkable concepts.
Actually, I think that human cognition is rooted in our ability to analogize to "thinkable concepts", but that is beyond the scope of this local discussion about debating "God". There is a big difference between a preposterous idea and a meaningless expression. Contradictions are preposterous, but they aren't meaningless. They are just inherently false. If they were meaningless, then we couldn't prove them to be false.

I think that you are attacking this from the wrong angle. The problem is not with the meaningfulness of words like "universe", "God", and "being". Meaning has very little to do with whether or not you can "visualize" the concepts. The problem is not with the definition of "God" but with the plausibility of a being that has the attributes attributed to God. We can certainly imagine things that don't exist, and God is as good a candidate for nonexistence as any imaginary being. However, I think that most people (with perhaps the exception of logical positivists) are quite capable of imagining gods and universes. So your linguistic argument isn't going to carry a lot of weight in debates over the existence of gods.

[theghostinthemachine]

Originally posted by Steven Carr
Surely the default position is that nature is natural.

Hello Steve.

Is there a rule in logic that states that atheism is the default position?

[Philosoft]

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
Case in point. I seriously doubt that the state of Israel would exist today without the horrors of the Holocaust.
This line of reasoning lends itself to the evidential problem of evil. Are we supposed to accept that 6 million was the minimum number of Jewish deaths necessary for the creation of Israel? God couldn't have done it with 3 million?
Is permitting death unloving of God?
Maybe not, but permitting fewer unnecessary deaths is certainly more loving.
Are you certain that the victims of the Holocaust are nonexistent? Yes? How so?
What difference does it make if they continue to "exist"? By this logic, no saved Christian who has ever died has been wronged. I guess the death toll in the WTC attacks should be changed to reflect that.

[Philosoft]

Originally posted by theghostinthemachine
Is there a rule in logic that states that atheism is the default position?
Why does this need to be a "rule in logic"? Do you think any month-old infant has an intrinsic belief in God, or anything else for that matter?

[theghostinthemachine]

Originally posted by Philosoft
Why does this need to be a "rule in logic"? Do you think any month-old infant has an intrinsic belief in God, or anything else for that matter?

Infants have little to do with burden of proof claims, and whether atheism is the default position. Is lack of belief in existence of everything the default postion since infants do not believe in anything? I hear quite a few atheists tout burden of proof claims, and I want to know what rule or principle in logic they draw their conclusion from. Certainly, you, Steve, and Spenser are not just pulling this out of thin air.

[Cross Examiner]

Philosoft,
This line of reasoning lends itself to the evidential problem of evil. Are we supposed to accept that 6 million was the minimum number of Jewish deaths necessary for the creation of Israel? God couldn't have done it with 3 million?

What if the 6 million we lost, resulting in the creation of Israel, saved 10 million that would've otherwise perished had the Holocaust not occurred (holding human free will and natural consequence constant/assuming no divine intervention)? It also could have been more 6 million. But it wasn't. In the end, God has kept his promise to Abraham and is working out his plan. I guess we'll "know" for sure in the end, though, eh?

Maybe not, but permitting fewer unnecessary deaths is certainly more loving.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. It depends on what the future/aggregate costs are; a tricky business, this speculation on future cost and greater goods.

What difference does it make if they continue to "exist"? By this logic, no saved Christian who has ever died has been wronged. I guess the death toll in the WTC attacks should be changed to reflect that.

No. Death counts. So do wrongful acts, tort, evil etc. But these things are not all that counts. The Nazi persecutors will receive recompense. Final justice was not served at Nuremberg; "for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord (Romans 12:19b)."

Regards,
BGic

[SignOfTheCross]

Atheism is the Default Position

...though this is hotly contested by many theists, it clearly true. First off atheism must be defined:

Atheism - Lacking belief in a God or Gods

First of all, the definition of the term "atheist" does not belong to atheists. Historically, atheism has meant 'belief in not god(s)" and most philosophy dictionaries define it as "belief that god does not exist".

It is not the denial of God as many theists will label it which of course asserts his existence then a positive claim of denial to a reality. Note this is different than claiming God does not exist which is a positive claim of a negative statement.

As far as I know, theists don't use the word "denial" in the sense... 'Psychology. An unconscious defense mechanism characterized by refusal to acknowledge painful realities, thoughts, or feelings'. Deny can mean 'To declare untrue; contradict. To refuse to believe; reject. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disavow.'

Its simple, we start with nothing. What do we have so far? Nothing. We then take what we can observe, the universe. What do we have? The universe. At this point we are atheists because we lack belief in anything other than what we have observed. What evidence do we need of the universe? Well its all right there for us to observe. This is where I stop, the universe has been proved to exist. Take it one step further and add to the equation that God created it and now you have the concept of theism, however until some sort of REAL evidence in support of God becomes apparent you cannot call it the default position. Atheism precedes theism.

If atheism is a belief that there are no gods, then how can anyone who has not a belief that there are no god's be an atheist? On the contrary, if every civilisation has held the belief that there is a god(s), does that not justify the belief that theism precedes atheism? That is, one must have a concept of god to deny god. I cannot logically have a belief santa does not exist until I am introduced to the concept of santa.

For all you theists thinking "BULL SHIT!" Or "Why not agnosticism or pantheism?" Let's show you the absurdity of thinking otherwise. Prior to your parents telling you that Santa Clause exists, you lacked belief in Santa. The concept of Santa had to be introduced into the equation before you could consider anything other than a lack of belief in such a thing. Lack of belief is the default position. No one would say "Why not an agnostic stance towards Santa or Elfism???" That's just silliness.

Then again, how many civilisations throughout history have introduced the concept of santa? And how can one come to the logical belief that santa exists by through observations in nature? Such an analogy is absurd.

Since Theism is a positive statement that God exists, it requires the burden of proof. This kills it for all you who think to say "Prove God doesn't exist!" or "You can't prove God doesn't exist!!!" Now this is also silly. Anything that does not exists you cannot prove doesn't exist simply for the mere reason that it doesn't exist. There is nothing to work with to prove its nonexistence. This is why I made the statement earlier that saying 'God doesn't exist' is a positive claim on a negative statement (notice the 'not'). Positive claims about reality, about positive statements (IE God exists) are the ones that require proof.

Say for instance a god does exist, why would we need to prove His existence if already His existence is a reality? If we can discern His existence through observations in nature, then the burden is on you to prove otherwise.

Face it, no one should be expected to prove that leprechauns, antigravity devices, invisible pink unicorns or Canadians that don't say 'eh' exist right? It is more than reasonable to state that they do not until evidence is presented otherwise. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, of which theists have none.

Nice Carl Sagan quote there. Belief in God is not an extraordinary claim.

Atheism is the default position and the burden of proof remains in the hands of the theists.

Atheism is not the default position.

Defining God

To truly debate the topic we must do what many theists are unwilling to do to a satisfactory level and by and far do not agree upon with themselves. God is generally defined as omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, and personal. This means all powerful, all knowing, morally perfect, everywhere, and much like us as we were made in his image. An omnimax God in its rawest definition is completely self contradictory and destroyed with simple arguments such as:

Can God create a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it.

If he can't do either he's not omnipotent. Same goes for this one:

Can God create a square circle.

Most learned, critically thinking, rational atheists KNOW those arguements are old and stupid.

Then there is this:

Does God know what it feels like to be purely human?

How can he, he cannot know what anything feels like with out also being God at the same time. If he can't know it, he's not omniscient.

Jesus was purely human and purely divine.

Due to problems like these, more intelligent theists postulate the greatest possible being GPB. Meaning God is omnipotent in the extent that he can do anything that is actually possible. Even though he cannot create an unmarried bachelor it is not a contradiction with his omnipotence. It also yields to the fact that there are things that are impossible. Same goes for omniscience, God knows all things that are possible to know.

God's omnipotence is limited by logic, He cannot do the logically impossible.

Why go over this? Because it is in the theists favor and for the sake of argument that God be defined as the GPB rather than Omnimax in its brute definition. Otherwise he's already been easily refuted...

Yes.

Conclusion: Atheism is not the default position. Nice try though.

[Steven Carr]

Originally posted by theghostinthemachine
Hello Steve.

Is there a rule in logic that states that atheism is the default position?

The default position is surely that you are ignorant of what exists until you find out what exists.

[Steven Carr]

Originally posted by theghostinthemachine
Infants have little to do with burden of proof claims, and whether atheism is the default position. Is lack of belief in existence of everything the default postion since infants do not believe in anything? I hear quite a few atheists tout burden of proof claims, and I want to know what rule or principle in logic they draw their conclusion from.

Infants do not believe in anything?

I'm not sure I understand this.

Perhaps I can clarify to help my understanding.


Suppose the infant has a mother called Mary Smith.

Now the infant certainly believes its mother exists.

But perhaps you are talking about the very moment of birth, when the infant does not know its mother.

Then the infant does not know that Mary Smith exists.

So is the default position for philosophers and new-born infants that we should not accept that a woman called Mary Smith exists, until we are shown proof that there is such a woman?

[Volker]

Originally posted by SignOfTheCross
If atheism is a belief that there are no gods, then how can anyone who has not a belief that there are no god's be an atheist? On the contrary, if every civilisation has held the belief that there is a god(s), does that not justify the belief that theism precedes atheism? That is, one must have a concept of god to deny god. I cannot logically have a belief santa does not exist until I am introduced to the concept of santa.

First, it ist simply wrong that "every civilisation has held the belief that there is a god(s)". The chinese people didn't even had a word for god, until they've been visited by christian missionaries. God was an alien concept to them.

Today, only half the world beliefs in the one god. The belief that our ancestors continue to live is far more widespread than any god-concept. One third believes in the christian god.

I've shown that "God exists because you can't prove the opposite" is an invalid argument because it leads to a contradiction. And because you can't prove the nonexistence of something, but you can prove the existence of something, it is quite obvious that theist has to prove the existence of god. It is the only way out. Otherwise, the default position is: "I don't care wether god exists or not, because I don't have evidence for or against it".

You can define god in a way that makes it logical impossible to prove the nonexistence of god. It is simply a trick to shift the burden of proof so that it is impossible to prove it.

That is a variation of the argument, but far more stupid:

"Because it ist impossible to prove otherwise, X exists"

[mosaic]

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
Philosoft,


What if the 6 million we lost, resulting in the creation of Israel, saved 10 million that would've otherwise perished had the Holocaust not occurred (holding human free will and natural consequence constant/assuming no divine intervention)? It also could have been more 6 million. But it wasn't. In the end, God has kept his promise to Abraham and is working out his plan. I guess we'll "know" for sure in the end, though, eh?





Sickening. I'm not going to wait till the end of times to decide whether or not the holocaust was unneccesary. This is what is truly disturbing to me about theism,. It gives purpose to suffering. Fact is, what we derive from suffering does not mean it is the reason for it. And maybe ithe holocaust created a state, acting very much like its early oppressors now? But dont face the reality of the situation, speculate and wait for god to validate it. You know 6 million jews dieing hastened our progress towards Armaggdeon, as opposed to maybe two million who'd make the end of days drag on a little longer.

[Cross Examiner]

mosaic,

Sickening. I'm not going to wait till the end of times to decide whether or not the holocaust was unneccesary. This is what is truly disturbing to me about theism,. It gives purpose to suffering. Fact is, what we derive from suffering does not mean it is the reason for it. And maybe ithe holocaust created a state, acting very much like its early oppressors now? But dont face the reality of the situation, speculate and wait for god to validate it. You know 6 million jews dieing hastened our progress towards Armaggdeon, as opposed to maybe two million who'd make the end of days drag on a little longer.

You'll note that I did not say you are not free to "decide" now, only that you won't "know" the certainty of such things until the end, until all is made known (if it ever will for those who reject Christ). Anyway, besides your technical mistake, yours is an interesting point of view. Mine is that it is a simple understanding that if God is, then this life is only a proving ground yet each decision and event has eternal significance, where the Holocaust was both intrinsically, undeniably evil and that the propagators of the Holocaust will see final justice. However, if there is no God, then all we can say is that the majority of humans living (I suppose we can take a Gallup poll, yay!) today feel that the enactment that the Holocaust was not a choice beneficial to the survival of the species--and that the Nazi persecutors are dead and long gone now; they will never see final justice per se, so, meh...

The latter satisfies little.

Regards,
BGic

For the unwise, the above is not intended to be a “therefore God exists: QED” so, relax.

[theghostinthemachine]

Originally posted by Steven Carr
The default position is surely that you are ignorant of what exists until you find out what exists.

Hello Steven.

Is there a rule in logic that states that atheism is the default position?

[Steven Carr]

Originally posted by theghostinthemachine
Hello Steven.

Is there a rule in logic that states that atheism is the default position?

I explained my view on what knowledge is in an honest attempt to explain where atheists are coming from.

You can address that , or point out why I am wrong, or repeat yourself parrot-fashion, indicating you do not wish to understand the view point of atheists. Your choice.

You might like to help BillyGrahamiscool on the omniscience and free will thread. He has claimed that there is not necesarily any libertarian free will and now denied that Satan/Lucifer is responsible for any evil in this world, and denies that anybody has traditionally thought of Satan as having free will.

He needs your help, and you can do a lot better than he can, as you have far more understanding of what is involved.

[Just_An_Atheist]

Depends on how you define "atheism".

If we take apart the word, and analyze it, it would certainly seem that way. For instance, atheism begins with the prefix "a" meaning "without". So, if we took it literally, then "atheism" would simply mean someone who isn't a theist, not someone who necessarily believes that theism is wrong.

The principle would then be the burden of proof. This would make atheism (as defined above) the default position. You are the one making the claim (that a thing called a "God" exists.), so until you make a case, someone is perfectly rational in being an atheist (as defined above.).

[Cross Examiner]

Steven Carr,

denied that Satan/Lucifer is responsible for any evil in this world

No, Steven. Read my statement closely, repeatedly if need be:

"In Plantinga's FWD, no, he does not factor in angels (including Lucifer/Satan) or deity as “free creatures,” nor should he have to since he is addressing the specific problem of evil in this world, where we “free creatures” are the ones committing evil calling into question either God's goodness or power."

How, Steven, does the above equate with Satan not being "responsible for any evil in this world," exactly?

and denies that anybody has traditionally thought of Satan as having free will.

Wrong again, Steven. Read my statement closely, repeatedly if need be:

"Besides, this issue has never, traditionally, extended to supernatural beings. If you wish to extend the problem of evil unto supernatural beings, like angels or God, you'll at least need an argument for why they should be included. Personally, I don't suppose there is the sort of data that we can use to make airtight comparisons between Satan and mankind, with regards to free will. But, you are free to try, if it is that important to you."

This "issue" I refer to above is Plantinga's Free Will Defense (FWD), not that there is none who "thought of Satan as having free will." Nor do I say above that Satan is traditionally not thought of as having free will, only that I suppose there is insufficient data to be substituting him in for the principle subjects (free creatures) of the FWD, those that we do have plenty of data on; namely, human beings. Get it right. I will keep hounding you on the details until you get it right. Additionally, stop trying to drag another thread into this one, that is bad form. Bad, bad form.

Regards,
BGic

[Steven Carr]

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
Get it right. I will keep hounding you on the details until you get it right. Additionally, stop trying to drag another thread into this one, that is bad form. Bad, bad form.

Regards,
BGic

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/koons/docs/chrphlec24NEW.html

'Plantinga's Hypothesis: all such evils are caused by abuses of creaturely free will - either human or superhuman (fallen angels).'

or

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ124.HTM

'But the purpose of FWD is not to explain and “reveal” all the deepest mysteries of God’s Providence and omniscience .....
Its purpose is merely to place the origin of evil in man (and fallen angels, which actually preceded man), as a function of his free will and free choice.....'



I now return you to your regular scheduled thread....

(and will not mention the subject again in this thread)

[Cross Examiner]

SC,
'Plantinga's Hypothesis: all such evils are caused by abuses of creaturely free will - either human or superhuman (fallen angels).'

Which establishes Robert C. Koons' analysis of FWD. What does that have to do with your claim that I:

"denied that Satan/Lucifer is responsible for any evil in this world."

or

denied "...that anybody has traditionally thought of Satan as having free will."

exactly?

Regards,
BGic

[Volker]

In most cases it is impossible to prove the nonexistence of an object in general. To shift the burden of proof to someone who denies the existence of something is a trick, because he doesn't stand a chance in proving that he is right.

So it is neither fair nor right to shift the burden of proof.

Until existence ist proven, it is safer to deny the existence. For most things we can think of, nonexistence is more probable then existence.

For this reason, atheism ist the default position.

[theghostinthemachine]

Originally posted by Steven Carr
I explained my view on what knowledge is in an honest attempt to explain where atheists are coming from.

You can address that , or point out why I am wrong, or repeat yourself parrot-fashion, indicating you do not wish to understand the view point of atheists. Your choice.

Why should I address anything from you when you have not answered one simple question? The answer is either yes, there is a rule in logic that states that atheism is the default position, or no, there is no rule that states that atheism is the default position. Would you care to answer the question for me now?

[Cross Examiner]

McInerny, a colleague to Plantinga, makes a brief case here (http://www.origins.org/articles/mcinerny_burdenofproof.html) that the burden of disproof belongs to the skeptic. McInerny is not light reading but does offer a few accessible points, if you wish. I'd be curious if anything therein causes objections to be brought forth from our atheist friends.

Regards,
BGic

[Just_An_Atheist]

"McInerny, a colleague to Plantinga, makes a brief case here that the burden of disproof belongs to the skeptic. McInerny is not light reading but does offer a few accessible points, if you wish. I'd be curious if anything therein causes objections to be brought forth from our atheist friends."

The problem with appealing to "basic beliefs" is that "basic belief epistemologists" havn't set a criteria as to what is, and what isn't a basic belief. So, anything from voodoo to astrology can become a "basic belief." All that they've said is that the evidence for the existence of other minds, which is obviously a basic belief, is equal to the evidence for the existence of God. That is, none. But this would mean that anything that has no evidence to support it could become a "basic belief."

[copernicus]

Originally posted by theghostinthemachine to Steven Carr
Why should I address anything from you when you have not answered one simple question? The answer is either yes, there is a rule in logic that states that atheism is the default position, or no, there is no rule that states that atheism is the default position. Would you care to answer the question for me now?
I'm sure that Plantinga can prove anything, if he can get you to buy his views on the necessary existence of beings. He promotes the peculiar anselmian argument that one can define some kind of God into existence, but his arguments have little bearing on the traditional God that most people talk about. In any case, he tries to meet the burden of proof to show God's existence.

Volker has been giving very good explanations for why atheism is the default position, and he has been pointedly ignored by our small group of enthusiastic theists. If we define "default position" as the one with the least burden of proof, then atheism is the default position. It is a denial of a claim that some entity exists. All of us, including theists, buy into this principle intuitively. Otherwise, we would have to hold a belief that every imaginary being exists, including all the gods that none of us believe in. As Volker explained, you cannot prove beyond all doubt that a proposed object or being exists. It is always easier to prove existence, because one can find definitive tangible proof of existence. There can be no definitive tangible proof of nonexistence.

What is the default position--that Zeus exists or not? Other things being equal, we all assume that Zeus doesn't exist. So why do theists try so hard not to admit that they have a burden of proof to show God's existence? A lot of theists actually believe that they can show such proof. Plantinga does. So why the embarrassment over the claim that atheism is the "default position". That does not mean that atheism is actually the "true position". It just means that theists owe us a little bit of an explanation. Why is that so hard?

[theghostinthemachine]

That does not mean that atheism is actually the "true position". It just means that theists owe us a little bit of an explanation. Why is that so hard?

I am more than willing to discuss the points that you have brought up, but my question keeps getting ignored. Theists owe atheists no more of an explanation than atheists do theists, which is the whole point that we are attempting to discuss. But to date, no one has answered my question. Steven Carr has avoided it several times in fact. Why is that so hard?

[copernicus]

Originally posted by theghostinthemachine
I am more than willing to discuss the points that you have brought up, but my question keeps getting ignored. Theists owe atheists no more of an explanation than atheists do theists, which is the whole point that we are attempting to discuss. But to date, no one has answered my question. Steven Carr has avoided it several times in fact. Why is that so hard?
Nonsense. Your question was answered numerous times in this thread. Please consult the Shifting the Burden of Proof fallacy (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting) on the Infidels web site, if you don't fully grasp the logical issues. As noted there, Shifting the Burden of Proof is a special case of "Argument from Ignorance". Anyway, if you object to this point of logic, please explain why.

[SteveD]

theghostinthemachine,

I'll address your question directly.

Is there a rule in logic that states that atheism is the default position?

No.

Neither is there a rule in logic that stats that theism is the default position. Assuming your question was in earnest it betrays a lack of understanding on your part of what logic is.

The rules of logic are structured such that valid conclusions are reached from the given premises.

If you are interested in learning more about the rules of logic I would suggest the book Elementary Logic by Willard Van Orman Quine.

Steve

[Philosoft]

Originally posted by Billy Graham is cool
What if the 6 million we lost, resulting in the creation of Israel, saved 10 million that would've otherwise perished had the Holocaust not occurred (holding human free will and natural consequence constant/assuming no divine intervention)? It also could have been more 6 million. But it wasn't. In the end, God has kept his promise to Abraham and is working out his plan. I guess we'll "know" for sure in the end, though, eh?
Surely an omnipotent being's "plan" need not kill 6 million to save 10 million? If God's actually doing some planning here, it seems inevitable that there was a way to bring about whatever greater good resulted from the holocaust, yes?
Perhaps. Perhaps not. It depends on what the future/aggregate costs are; a tricky business, this speculation on future cost and greater goods.
However, God need not speculate. If he's planning some ultimate outcome, it follows that he's got to plan the steps that result in that outcome.
No. Death counts. So do wrongful acts, tort, evil etc. But these things are not all that counts. The Nazi persecutors will receive recompense. Final justice was not served at Nuremberg; "for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord (Romans 12:19b)."
I'm have a hard time rationalising the deaths of the Jews if the resulting "greater good" was that the Nazis were sent to hell. I hope this isn't what you're implying.

[Philosoft]

Originally posted by copernicus

I think that you are attacking this from the wrong angle. The problem is not with the meaningfulness of words like "universe", "God", and "being". Meaning has very little to do with whether or not you can "visualize" the concepts.
I think it has everything to do with visualization when the concepts are said to represent existing things.
The problem is not with the definition of "God" but with the plausibility of a being that has the attributes attributed to God.
I don't even get that far. I am told God is a being that isn't made of matter. Yet everything we know about "beings," indeed our very ability to conceive of them, depends on our ability to at least roughly describe how they look. Thus, to me, a "non-material being" translates to something like, "a thing that exists but doesn't exist."
We can certainly imagine things that don't exist, and God is as good a candidate for nonexistence as any imaginary being. However, I think that most people (with perhaps the exception of logical positivists) are quite capable of imagining gods and universes. So your linguistic argument isn't going to carry a lot of weight in debates over the existence of gods.
You're certainly right with that last sentence, though I don't believe it's because I'm wrong.

The God-concept's utter incomprehensibility strikes me as a knee-jerk, ad hoc rationalization. The Old Testament God is undeniably anthropomorphized; thus, the realization of said prompted a restructuring - most of the things we understood about beings had to go. What we got back was not some higher-order concept, but more of an anti-concept - a collection of negative attributes, all basically negations of the limited attributes we understood about humans, but couched in terms of infinites.

That's all speculation, I understand, but it makes some sense to me.

[copernicus]

I think that you are attacking this from the wrong angle. The problem is not with the meaningfulness of words like "universe", "God", and "being". Meaning has very little to do with whether or not you can "visualize" the concepts.

Originally posted by Philosoft
I think it has everything to do with visualization when the concepts are said to represent existing things.

I see this statement as the crux of our disagreement. We can imagine and describe all kinds of preposterous and nonexistent beings. What is really preposterous is the idea that our words can only refer to mundane concepts. The word "God" has myriads of perfectly good meanings, all of them highly unlikely to refer to a truly existent being.

[theghostinthemachine]

Originally posted by SteveD
theghostinthemachine,

I'll address your question directly.

Great, you will be the first one in this forum to do so.

No.

OK, so there is no rule in logic that states that atheism is the default position. On what grounds is atheism the default position since no rule can be given?

Neither is there a rule in logic that stats that theism is the default position. Assuming your question was in earnest it betrays a lack of understanding on your part of what logic is.

Not at all. I understand logic just fine. I am just attempting to get some of the atheists here realize a very important point concerning burden of proof claims and logic.

The rules of logic are structured such that valid conclusions are reached from the given premises.

Really? I was not aware that conclusions can be 'valid'. I know that argument forms can be valid or invalid. I know that arguments can have a false conclusion and be valid in form, but I was not aware that conclusions can be 'valid'.

If you are interested in learning more about the rules of logic I would suggest the book Elementary Logic by Willard Van Orman Quine.

Steve

I rather like other texts better, but I am sure I can always learn a thing or two.

[theghostinthemachine]

Originally posted by copernicus
Nonsense. Your question was answered numerous times in this thread. Please consult the Shifting the Burden of Proof fallacy (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting) on the Infidels web site, if you don't fully grasp the logical issues. As noted there, Shifting the Burden of Proof is a special case of "Argument from Ignorance". Anyway, if you object to this point of logic, please explain why.

Well this is certainly interesting. You claim my question was answered several times, but there was only one person that answered the question directly.

Now on with your second claim. How is it that I have shifted the burden of proof (which is an inormal fallacy by the way, not a rule of logic)? You have not established that atheism is the default position, so there is no burden to shift. As Nathan J. Jun, an atheist has pointed out, you cannot draw a rule or principle in logic from an informal fallacy:

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam is an "*informal* logical
fallacies - that is, fallacies which can only be detected by inspecting
the content of an argument. they are to be distinguished as such from
*formal* fallacies - that is, fallacies which are detected by inspecting
the form or structure of an argument. now, as anyone who has ever
studied formal logic knows, the *content* of an argument is more or less
irrelevant from a purely logical point of view, because logic is
concerned with the structure of arguments and, more importantly, the
relationships which exist between arguments by dint of their structure.
informal fallacies, then, have more to do with dialectical reasoning or
rhetoric than logic (as is made abundantly clear by aristotle, who was
the person responsible for cataloguing them in the first place in the
'sophistical refutations'). for this reason, it is simply impossible to
derive a "profound principle" of *logic* from any of the informal
fallacies.

third, let's be clear about what the term "argumentum ad ignorantiam"
actually means. according to patrick hurley's "a concise introduction to
logic" (wadsworth, 1997, pp. 140-1), "when the premises of an argument
state that nothing has been proved one way or the other about something,
and the conclusion then makes a definite assertion about the thing, the
argument commits an appeal to ignorance." this definition only applies
to arguments with determinate content. as such, it says absolutely
nothing about the truth or falsity of *logical* arguments, which are
determined by the structure of the arguments rather than their content.
once again, you cannot derive a "profound logical principle" from what
amounts to a mere dialectical rule or rhetorical protocol.

... Why can't a person (such as myself) simultaneously hold (1) that
god isn't possible and (2) the so-called "burden of proof" is inherited
by whomever makes a claim, irrespective of whether the claim is
"positive" or "negative"? "

Logically, the propositions, "God exists" and "God does not exist" are the same - and both incur the burden of proof. You, nor anyone else can provide a rule in logic that states that atheism (or any other existential negative for that matter) is the default position, and that you have no burden of proof. In short, there is no burden to shift here. If I were to claim that 'God exists' and then offered as evidence, the fact that God has not been disproven, then I would be shifting the burden of proof. Likewise, if an atheist claimed that 'God does not exist' and his proof was that God has not been proven to exist, this is argumentum ad ignorantiam.

[Philosoft]

Originally posted by copernicus
I see this statement as the crux of our disagreement. We can imagine and describe all kinds of preposterous and nonexistent beings. What is really preposterous is the idea that our words can only refer to mundane concepts. The word "God" has myriads of perfectly good meanings, all of them highly unlikely to refer to a truly existent being.
Thanks for the constructive criticism. I have some more thoughts, but I think I should dig out some Ayer perhaps, as I'm not as clear-headed about this line of reasoning as I thought.

Cheers.

[Steven Carr]

Originally posted by theghostinthemachine
Why should I address anything from you when you have not answered one simple question? The answer is either yes, there is a rule in logic that states that atheism is the default position, or no, there is no rule that states that atheism is the default position. Would you care to answer the question for me now?

What is the answer to a compound question like 'Have you stopped beating your wife?'

There is no rule in logic which states that atheism is the default, just as there is no rule in basketball which states that atheism is the default position.

[Steven Carr]

Originally posted by theghostinthemachine

Logically, the propositions, "God exists" and "God does not exist" are the same - and both incur the burden of proof. You, nor anyone else can provide a rule in logic that states that atheism (or any other existential negative for that matter) is the default position, and that you have no burden of proof.

a) they are not the same proposition, as atheists are unable to define your god coherently, rendering 'God does not exist' a string of syllables rather than a proposition.

b) Atheists lack belief in your god, and I for one make no categorical claim that there is no higher being.

This is all elementary stuff. If you don't know what atheists are claiming......

[Volker]

The "burden of proof" discussion is so interesting, because it is easier to criticize than to defend. So whoever is in the position to defend ist somewhat handicapped.

This is used sometimes in a fallacious way:

Say, I hold position A. But I have not enough arguments to defend that position. I construct an opposite position ~A. Now I challenge everyone to defend ~A. If they fail, I claim victory, because if ~A is not true, A is true by default (creationism is based on the wrong assumption that the failure of the evolutionary theory will make creationism true by default).

But wait a minute. This is only possible if there is no other possible position besides A and ~A. That is, there is no A' and no A'' and so on. In the case of god, this clearly isn't the case. So the first error is that position ~A is not true because someone failed to prove ~A. The second error in our case is: If we fail fail to disproof ~A, A is true. This definitely is false, especially in the case of existence. Because I fail to prove that Zeus doesn't exist, Zeus does not exist by default. Something exists because I can show it exists, not because I trick it by clever arguments into existence.

Here, another trick comes into play. On my website (unfortunately in german) I argued for the nonexistence of the christian god, using six different arguments. But whenever I use one of this arguments in a discussion, every theist says inevitable: "You have proven that some god does not exist, but you haven't proven that my god does not exist". So, first they put an atheist into the difficult position to show his position to be valid, but when this works they don't accept the conclusions. They do it because, most of the time, the casual atheist will fail to defend his position. They can then use the fallacy of the burden of proof to discredit the atheistic position, because most laymen do not know about "burden of proof" and that the argument "if ~A is false, A is true" is invalid.

I don't like using tricks in arguments. I think whoever does this has to do so because he knows that his position is weak. I'm ready to defend my atheistic position and I'm accepting the burden of proof, because discussing who has to prove what is somehow a waste of time.

If theists could defend their position, they would do it and they wouldn't care about the burden of proof. In science, you seldom will find "burden of proof" discussions. Those who can prove will do it. Those who can't won't tell anyone that they have a true position, all they will tell is that they have a possible position. And if it comes to the proof of existence, those who claim the existence of X have to prove ist. If they fail, no one will continue to assume that X exists. All they can say that X might exist.

And, if you fail a number of times to prove that X exists, that will make the existence of X more and more improbable. Now, after more than 2.000 years of failure, this makes the existence of god so highly improbable that on this ground alone the burden of proof is on those that still and in spite of all failures claim that god exists. Because of this, the claim that god exists is indeed extraordinary and needs (1) an explanation why there were so many failures and (2) a really, really good proof that won't mess things up again.

Any position that can't prove its basic assumption is weak. And with every failure it gets weaker and weaker.

(I hope you apology my bad english, and I hope you will try to understand what I'm trying to say, not what I've really said)

[Jobar]

Volker, I like the German 'flavor' of your English. And since so many famous philosophers were and are German, it even adds an illogical (but nevertheless real) authority to your arguments, at least to us English speakers.

I am adding this-
And, if you fail a number of times to prove that X exists, that will make the existence of X more and more improbable. Now, after more than 2.000 years of failure, this makes the existence of god so highly improbable that on this ground alone the burden of proof is on those that still and in spite of all failures claim that god exists. Because of this, the claim that god exists is indeed extraordinary and needs (1) an explanation why there were so many failures and (2) a really, really good proof that won't mess things up again.

Any position that can't prove its basic assumption is weak. And with every failure it gets weaker and weaker.

-to a list of powerfully stated atheistic arguments I have been collecting from II over the past 2 years. I hope you continue to post here, and don't worry about small imprecisions of language. Plenty of native-born speakers of English do not express themselves nearly as well!

[Spenser]

TIME OUT!


This has gotten ridiculous, the OP I felt wasn’t even the real start of debate. It was simply set up. I have seen theists here scramble a defense against yet no argument, and in doing so not directly even attack the OP but more dodge and weave, then put forth messy absurd arguments trying to shift the ’burden of proof’ to atheists.

The burden of proof doesn’t prove atheism to be true people. And since theists are so up in arms about it; the weakness of their stance becomes quite apparent.

If I tell you I have a Ferrari would you believe it? In fact, I drive around town everyday in my truck but continue to insist I have a Ferrari would you believe it? Probably not and in fact you would be perfectly justified in making the claim that “Spenser does not have a Ferrari!” Until you see that I indeed do have one. I would be unjustified in saying “Prove I don’t have one. If you can’t then indeed my Ferrari does exist!” Now the fact is, I may indeed have a Ferrari. Just as there may indeed be a God, but the burden of proof for the existence of my Ferrari would be in my hands just as the burden of proof for God remains in the hands of theists.

Theists claim God exists. Atheists claim God does not. The theists claim precedes that of the atheists obviously, atheists wouldn’t have anything to deny the claim of if the theist claim didn’t come first. The theists claim gets the burden of proof and until it passes the atheists claim is obviously default. It’s simply the state you were at prior to the claim that ‘God exists’ was made. The only reason atheists make the claim that God doesn’t exists is because the theistic claim fails the burden of proof. You cannot get around it, the claim that God exists has to come before the claim that he doesn’t because the concept of God has to be introduced in order to reject it. The default position would be the opposite of the theists claim until said claim passes the 'burden of proof' test.

FACT:
1. Theists carry the burden of proof.
2. Atheism is the default position.

Get over it; this doesn’t disprove your God. Nit picking this only shows the insecurity of many theistic arguments and I know you guys have more faith in your arguments than that. Now I was surprised I had to defend the OP however I think these things need to be made clear before I continue. Sorry for the length of time between posts here, I am doing work on elections in CA and you can only imagine the current workload…

Spenser

[copernicus]

Originally posted by theghostinthemachine
Well this is certainly interesting. You claim my question was answered several times, but there was only one person that answered the question directly.
Just about everyone who answered you answered your question directly. You failed to respond to the answers except by repeating your question. For example:

Originally posted by Steven Carr
The default position is surely that you are ignorant of what exists until you find out what exists.

Hello Steven.

Is there a rule in logic that states that atheism is the default position?

Steven made clear what the expression "default position" meant. You simply ignored him, hoping to transform the discussion into one where your presupposition that it was a statement about formal logic would be relevant.

Now on with your second claim. How is it that I have shifted the burden of proof (which is an inormal fallacy by the way, not a rule of logic)? You have not established that atheism is the default position, so there is no burden to shift. As Nathan J. Jun, an atheist has pointed out, you cannot draw a rule or principle in logic from an informal fallacy:...
It is quite true that shifting the burden of proof is an informal fallacy. It speaks to the soundness of the argument. We are not talking about truth-preserving rules of logic, but we are talking about rules that govern the content of an argument. You can construct formal proofs with any premise that you like, even one that is not the default position with respect to the unevidenced existence of a being or object.

...now, as anyone who has ever
studied formal logic knows, the *content* of an argument is more or less irrelevant from a purely logical point of view, because logic is concerned with the structure of arguments and, more importantly, the relationships which exist between arguments by dint of their structure.
This is quite correct and quite irrelevant. The subject of this debate is the existence of God. The point in calling atheism a "default position" does indeed have to do with the *content* of an argument. As an empirical claim, the null hypothesis would be that no supernatural beings exist. Why would you think that this is a matter of formal logic? BTW, the word "logic" does not always mean "formal logic". It is quite permissible to call unsound argument "illogical" because they violate informal fallacies. In any case, you were the one who introduced the word "logic", and it counts as nothing but a strawman in this debate. Oops! There I go again. Another informal fallacy. :p

..informal fallacies, then, have more to do with dialectical reasoning or rhetoric than logic (as is made abundantly clear by aristotle, who was the person responsible for cataloguing them in the first place in the 'sophistical refutations'). for this reason, it is simply impossible to derive a "profound principle" of *logic* from any of the informal fallacies.
Again, we are more interested in reasoning and rhetoric than formal logic. I suppose that one could confuse the term "default position" with "assumption" or "premise" in a formal proof, but why would you want to do that? We aren't talking about the validity of the argument, but its soundness.

... Why can't a person (such as myself) simultaneously hold (1) that god isn't possible and (2) the so-called "burden of proof" is inherited by whomever makes a claim, irrespective of whether the claim is "positive" or "negative"? "
Finally, you ask a relevant question. My answer is that a person such as yourself can take such a position, but it violates the informal fallacy (or "rhetorical principle" if you prefer) that people making a positive claim, especially a claim about existence, have the burden to defend that claim. Atheism is inherently a denial of the claim that supernatural beings, or "gods", exist. Indeed, you yourself hold to this principle when discussing gods that you believe don't exist. Or maybe you do believe that Zeus exists. We haven't established that yet. ;)

Logically, the propositions, "God exists" and "God does not exist" are the same - and both incur the burden of proof. You, nor anyone else can provide a rule in logic that states that atheism (or any other existential negative for that matter) is the default position, and that you have no burden of proof. In short, there is no burden to shift here. If I were to claim that 'God exists' and then offered as evidence, the fact that God has not been disproven, then I would be shifting the burden of proof. Likewise, if an atheist claimed that 'God does not exist' and his proof was that God has not been proven to exist, this is argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Nonsense. You seem to be claiming that informal fallacies have no role to play in debates, and that is patently absurd. This isn't about who made the first claim, the atheist or the theist. Atheism means nothing at all in the absence of theism. It is defined by theism, and it is wholly responsive to the positive claim made by theism, which is a type of belief. That God exists is an empirical claim, and the default position in any empirical claim is its negation.

[Randy X]

Hello SignOfTheCross,

First of all, the definition of the term "atheist" does not belong to atheists. Historically, atheism has meant 'belief in not god(s)" and most philosophy dictionaries define it as "belief that god does not exist".

Christ where do I begin.Okay, perhaps you could substantiate your answer? Provide evidence that suggests that the definition of the term "atheist" does not belong to atheists? You make these claims, so provide adequate proof? Do you live in the old ages, or do you live in the present age? What does the present age definition of athiesm tell you? Very weak theist tactics, though.

On the contrary, if every civilisation has held the belief that there is a god(s), does that not justify the belief that theism precedes atheism?

Ahh, so now there is a majority vote involved.Thats insane.So you assume that the majority is a prerequisite for believing that theism precedes atheism? Appealing to majority??? Christ, if the majority decides to jump off a cliff, then surely you will do the same, surely? Thats completely illogical.Based on your logic, I assume that you assume that the majority is also a prerequisite for believing in the credibility of Gods existance.Thats absurd.If every human being in the world believed in God, does that make it more true? Not by any account! Thats absolute blasphemy! If the entire population believed in God(based on faith), then its simply mass delusions and influence on a majority scale, and nothing more.Hell, faith is irrational and absurd in and of itself.In fact, faith is a sin!

Such an analogy is absurd

Exactly, belief in God is completely absurd! I'm glad that we both agree.

Say for instance a god does exist, why would we need to prove His existence if already His existence is a reality?

Your question is basically self-explainable.I'll start first, what is God exactly? Give me your definition of "God", but think carefully, as it cannot contradict his nature based on blantant bible fallacies, and other such tripe.Most theists make the mistake of giving incoherent definitions that contradict Gods nature and even his attributes.The problem here is that you assume that God DOES exist, as if its an absolute fact.First, you must understand that nothing in existance is an absolute fact.You know that you exist, but you have no idea if your surroundings are in fact real.You have your senses, that much is true, but you still have no idea that what you are seeing is "real".No-one in existance can actually prove that this reality is "real".We are not absolutely certain about anything in existance.However there is reasonable certainty that this existance is real.Reasonable certainty is still not "good" enough to be positively sure about anything, so anything is necessarily possible.That means that possibilities are not that far fetched as the credibility of our existance is necessarily suspect.Perhaps you are dreaming everything into existance? Perhaps you are "God", who knows? Perhaps we are all dreaming right this instant, as we cannot know for certain.Absolute certainty that is.How can you assume that God exists without any evidence whatsoever, and then deem it necessary to accept his existance to be true by default? So in other words, no evidence equals evidence by default? Theists basically presume that no evidence equals evidence, which perfectly describes their irrationality.So no evidence that God exists, is just another way of saying that God exists, and to "hell" with any evidence? Thats a weak refutation.No evidence equals evidence, is absolutely priceless for the theist.Or another way that you could say it, is that no evidence equals enough evidence to believe it(anything) to be true.This is another escape tactic from fellow theists, and its quite popular.God's(or whatever his "real" name is) "existance" is just a strange affair.Wouldn't God want a "better" defense than this, surely?

If we can discern His existence through observations in nature, then the burden is on you to prove otherwise.

A weak tactic, and absolutely incorrect.You claim that you can discern "his"(whatever that means) existance through observations in nature, therefore the onus is on YOU to prove it to be true.You made the claim, so you should prepare to defend it with evidence.Remember the saying, "You can dish out the punishment, but cannot take it".Why is God a "he"? What makes you assume that God is not a "she"? How can you discern "his" existence through observations in nature? Please we are all begging to be enlightened? Unfortunately, there are no exists for you, and certainly no shortcuts for you either.Either you prove it, or you keep quite.Thus far, you arguments are not very convincing, and can be refuted all too easily.

My alias is Christ.Do you not believe that i'm Christ? Since there is no evidence that i'm not Christ, according to your logic, my argument takes immediate precedence and supercedes all refutations, as there is no evidence that can counter my claim.Remember, no proof equals proof:(Kidding aside, you need to understand the basic principles of reasoning/logic.

Belief in God is not an extraordinary claim

Eh? Belief in "God" is the most extraordinarily absurd claim in all of existance! Pink unicorns, Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny, border on insane claims.Still no-where near as absurd as "God".Perhaps you could explain what makes "God" not an extraordinary claim?

Atheism is not the default position

Pure conjecture.Correction, its your opinion that atheism is not the default position.You can assert this position a thousand times, however its not going to make one ounce of a difference in your case.

Jesus was purely human and purely divine.

What???? Completely ambiguous.What is "purely" in this case? What is "purely divine"? Why "purely human"? What makes humans divine? So then what does "purely human" mean? Are human beings not "purely human"? Are humans now impure, how? Was Jesus both purely human, AND purely divine, or just purely human, or just purely divine? Please give proper definitions for these words, otherwise your arguments will collapse on themselves.How do you know that Jesus was "purely divine"? How can you possible know Jesus, and his nature? How do you know that Jesus even existed in the first place? For christ sake, this is getting frustrating.:(How do you know anything at all? Do you believe in giant sea monsters as well? What about the three headed monster in the bible, do you believe that to be true? If not, then the entire bible is suspect.Sorry for my mild frustration, but its a consequence of your weak arguing abilities.Sorry, but this is the most unconvincing argument that i've ever encountered!

[takes deep breath]

God's omnipotence is limited by logic, He cannot do the logically impossible

Ah.....now God is limited? God is not unlimited then?Therefore God is not omnipotent.I always knew that God was weak, and taking 6 days to create the earth