Teak421's thread on the philosophical burden of proof

[_Locke]

Hey, whatdoyaknow! Thread was deleted.

Teak421 and all other interested parties, continue posting here? (Of course without the dreaded A-word)

Mods please don’t delete this, I’m sure everyone can stay within forum rules this time.

 

[teak421]

Hey, whatdoyaknow! Thread was deleted.

Teak421 and all other interested parties, continue posting here? (Of course without the dreaded A-word)

Mods please don’t delete this, I’m sure everyone can stay within forum rules this time.

Not sure what we did… I mean, I guess I should have seen the ban, but I tried to be on point on the evidence part. My apologies. Lucky for me I saved them to my hard drive so I can use them as research for my paper…

• Michael

 

[teak421]

Hey, whatdoyaknow! Thread was deleted.

Teak421 and all other interested parties, continue posting here? (Of course without the dreaded A-word)

Mods please don’t delete this, I’m sure everyone can stay within forum rules this time.

PLEASE SEE BELOW MY FINAL MESSAGE ON THE PREVIOUS FORUM. Thank you all for your help, I’ll without a doubt create a much better paper (apology) for my class!

AntiTheist:

I’m not asking you to try to “win.” I’m asking you what you think the best evidence for the existence of your god is. What convinced you, for example?

If I don’t think that your evidence supports your claim, I’ll explain why I think that – you, then, can respond if you don’t agree with my assessment. And so on and so forth.

That’s how we come to a better understanding of each other’s positions on these things.

Here’s my deal and I will say right up front… You WILL win every time… Because, I can not provide you with enough evidence to meet the 100 percent threshold. So, let’s say my threshold is… 75. Meaning, if I “feel” that I’ve gotten enough evidence for God, the last 25 percent will be filled by faith. Your number maybe is 90, or 99… Heck, I don’t know… Others, maybe are 25. Faith plays a role in pretty much all that we do, its the degree.

I’ve said earlier that logic can only take you so far… The thread was started because… forget it, you know why. But, that’s far different than the questions that you asked me in the last two messages (all valid by the way).

• Michael

 

[teak421]

Hey, whatdoyaknow! Thread was deleted.

Teak421 and all other interested parties, continue posting here? (Of course without the dreaded A-word)

Mods please don’t delete this, I’m sure everyone can stay within forum rules this time.

Also, Locke… Not sure if you saw my reply to your note about me and Zeus… My reply was simply: That helps, Thank you!

Have a nice night!

• Michael

 

[AntiTheist]

Faith plays a role in pretty much all that we do, its the degree.

Well, I guess my brilliant response to this was deleted, so I will try to reconstruct it.

Basically, I completely disagree that faith plays a role in what people do. For example, faith plays absolutely no role in my life.

“Faith,” as I define it, is accepting claims without sufficient evidence. I do not do this in my life, with anything.

For example, I know – on the basis of evidence – that it is very likely that my car will start when I turn the key. I’m not absolutely certain, but I’m not absolutely certain of anything. Thanks to evidence, I know – to a high degree of certainty – that my car will start. There’s not even the slightest bit of faith involved.

If all you mean by “faith” is “trusting the evidence,” then you’re really just talking about evidence.

If, however, you mean “accepting claims for which there is not enough evidence,” then I don’t think that that is a good way to know things about the world.

 

[_Locke]

If, however, you mean “accepting claims for which there is not enough evidence,” then I don’t think that that is a good way to know things about the world.

I think Nietzsche said it best when he wrote “A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.”

 

[teak421]

Hey, whatdoyaknow! Thread was deleted.

Teak421 and all other interested parties, continue posting here? (Of course without the dreaded A-word)

Mods please don’t delete this, I’m sure everyone can stay within forum rules this time.

Locke,

I cared enough to spend 10 seconds to see if I could find something that says Zeus does not exist… I found this, its kinda interesting: goo.gl/sNnKi

If necessary, I can provide additional evidence…

• Michael

 

[teak421]

Well, I guess my brilliant response to this was deleted, so I will try to reconstruct it.

Basically, I completely disagree that faith plays a role in what people do. For example, faith plays absolutely no role in my life.

“Faith,” as I define it, is accepting claims without sufficient evidence. I do not do this in my life, with anything.

For example, I know – on the basis of evidence – that it is very likely that my car will start when I turn the key. I’m not absolutely certain, but I’m not absolutely certain of anything. Thanks to evidence, I know – to a high degree of certainty – that my car will start. There’s not even the slightest bit of faith involved.

If all you mean by “faith” is “trusting the evidence,” then you’re really just talking about evidence.

If, however, you mean “accepting claims for which there is not enough evidence,” then I don’t think that that is a good way to know things about the world.

Well then, your threshold is 100… But, wait a minute… I thought you said that you are not sure that God does exist or not? So, on your scale that God does not exist, you can not be a 100. But, you believe that God does not exist, therefore isn’t your uncertainty faith? Which is it Anti? Do you believe or not… If you believe that God does not exist, then how do you reach your 100 level when you said on the other deleted thread that you are not certain. Perhaps you have faith after all…

• Michael

 

[_Locke]

Locke,

I cared enough to spend 10 seconds to see if I could find something that says Zeus does not exist… I found this, its kinda interesting: goo.gl/sNnKi

If necessary, I can provide additional evidence…

• Michael

The use of “Zeus” was arbitrary; you can insert the name of any god you don’t believe in. I could just as easily have selected Gaia (keeping with the Greek mythology theme here) who did not have a parent god and so would be a “being than which none greater can be conceived”. You might like this more comprehensive list: http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/5786/1278419427624.png (you can ignore the quote at the bottom; contains the a-word)

 

[AntiTheist]

Well then, your threshold is 100

No, it’s not. I just said that I’m not absolutely certain that my car will start when I turn the key. Just very sure, based on evidence.

… But, wait a minute… I thought you said that you are not sure that God does exist or not?

I’m not. I don’t have enough evidence to accept that there are any gods, of any kind.

But, you believe that God does not exist

I’m not sure how many times I can explain this again and again to you.

There is a difference – a big one – between believing that no gods exist and not believing that gods exist.

Imagine that I flip a coin and conceal it in my palm. Someone comes along and says that he believes the coin is heads up (he’s a headsist, or a theist). Someone else comes along and says that he doesn’t believe that the coin is heads up (he’s an a-headsist, or an atheist).

Question: does the aheadsist therefore believe that the coin is tails up?

Obviously not. An “aheadsist” would include people who believe the coin is tails up, but it also includes the people who simply say that they don’t accept that it’s heads up.

I’m in that second category. I don’t accept that the coin is heads up – I don’t accept the claim that a god exists, but that doesn’t mean that I accept the separate claim that no gods exist.

If I were advancing the claim that no gods exist, then I would have to produce evidence to support that claim. I am not advancing that claim.

Does that clarify the matter a little bit?

 

[AntiTheist]

Here’s a good parallel: do you believe in Shirley, the universe-creating unicorn who is intangible, lives outside of space and time, and wants everyone to dress up like pirates on the first friday after every full moon?

If you say that you don’t believe in Shirley, do you have to produce evidence to support your position? Or can you simply ask me why in the world I would believe in Shirley and see whether or not my evidence is sufficient to convince you?

 

[teak421]

The use of “Zeus” was arbitrary; you can insert the name of any god you don’t believe in. I could just as easily have selected Gaia (keeping with the Greek mythology theme here) who did not have a parent god and so would be a “being than which none greater can be conceived”. You might like this more comprehensive list: http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/5786/1278419427624.png

I played your fun little game and I provided evidence… You do not like it, but its evidence. So, your earlier message was excellent but I still think that I should provide evidence when confronted… and… so should the atheist.

Disclaimer: I and the atheist have to care enough to do the research. So, for me, Zeus is far removed from today’s society… has no real impact on the world today, so I might not spend time reading articles. And, the atheist may do the same for Christianity. Also, in making a determination on how much time I want to spend I think for just a sec and say… Hmmm… Zeus has no followers (well, there may be some actually?? But not very large)… no Churches, about 1/100th the documentation of Christianity… Perhaps, I need to spend my time there in Christianity. YES, its a judgement call that I make, just like the Atheist does… No disputing that… BUT, that does not removing me from providing evidence when challenged. So, pick another obscure god if you want.

But, provide me with some evidence for the non-existences of God. I am NOT asking you to prove that God does NOT exist, rather… just some evidence. If you can (I know its out there), then game over… we’re on the same page. That’s all I’ve been saying all along… two statements require evidence from each party. I don’t want to rehash it… it seems reasonable that both parties provide evidence to support their respective statements.

• Michael

 

[teak421]

Here’s a good parallel: do you believe in Shirley, the universe-creating unicorn who is intangible, lives outside of space and time, and wants everyone to dress up like pirates on the first friday after every full moon?

If you say that you don’t believe in Shirley, do you have to produce evidence to support your position? Or can you simply ask me why in the world I would believe in Shirley and see whether or not my evidence is sufficient to convince you?

Its late… I’ll provide evidence for you later Monday… But, yes. I do and I will.

Nite!

PM if the thread gets deleted…

• Michael

 

[AntiTheist]

yes. I do and I will.

You know what, kid? Why don’t you save it.

 

[teak421]

Here’s a good parallel: do you believe in Shirley, the universe-creating unicorn who is intangible, lives outside of space and time, and wants everyone to dress up like pirates on the first friday after every full moon?

If you say that you don’t believe in Shirley, do you have to produce evidence to support your position? Or can you simply ask me why in the world I would believe in Shirley and see whether or not my evidence is sufficient to convince you?

gaskinml@gmail.com is the email… FYI.

Already thinking about how I am going to construct my case against Shirley!

 

[teak421]

You know what, kid? Why don’t you save it.

42 years old… no kid here… well, maybe you older.

No No No… I want to construct my case against Shirley. I’ll offer evidence as to why I do not believe Shirley is the creator of the Universe and/or God. Maybe, we can have the forum as the jury to see if I presented my case well enough?

No matter what, I’ll post on my blog…even if you do not read it.

• Michael

 

[teak421]

Here’s a good parallel: do you believe in Shirley, the universe-creating unicorn who is intangible, lives outside of space and time, and wants everyone to dress up like pirates on the first friday after every full moon?

If you say that you don’t believe in Shirley, do you have to produce evidence to support your position? Or can you simply ask me why in the world I would believe in Shirley and see whether or not my evidence is sufficient to convince you?

Posted new article on my blog… I’ll write my case against Shirley on my train ride!

goo.gl/kzLwF

 

[Anselm33]

Hey, whatdoyaknow! Thread was deleted.

Teak421 and all other interested parties, continue posting here? (Of course without the dreaded A-word)

Mods please don’t delete this, I’m sure everyone can stay within forum rules this time.

I think there’s a fundamental lack of understanding by non-believers on what faith is, the belief in something that is not proven by logic, but is self-evident. For example, to take the simple case of geometry: in Euclid’s system you don’t take any of the axioms/postulates as proven, but as self-evident, for example, “if there is a line and a point not on the line, then there is exactly one line through the point that is parallel to the line.” You can choose to take that postulate as basic, and get Euclidean geometry, or you can choose not to, and get non-Euclidean geometry (Riemannian or Lobachevskian).
Analogously, you can choose to believe in God the Creator, on the basis of evidence or sufficient for yourself, or you can choose not to.
You can’t disprove the existence of God by any logical or scientific premise, particularly by any scientific method.
Anselm

 

[Rocinante]

I think there’s a fundamental lack of understanding by non-believers on what faith is,

i wouldn’t say that nonbelievers in particular suffer from a lack of understanding but rather that there exists among nonbelievers and believers alike a wide diversity of views on what faith is.

the belief in something that is not proven by logic, but is self-evident. For example, to take the simple case of geometry: in Euclid’s system you don’t take any of the axioms/postulates as proven, but as self-evident, for example, “if there is a line and a point not on the line, then there is exactly one line through the point that is parallel to the line.” You can choose to take that postulate as basic, and get Euclidean geometry, or you can choose not to, and get non-Euclidean geometry (Riemannian or Lobachevskian).
Analogously, you can choose to believe in God the Creator, on the basis of evidence or sufficient for yourself, or you can choose not to.

this is an interesting conception of faith, but i’m not sure it works. transubstantiation is not at all self-evident. i suppose that the virgin birth is a matter of faith, too, but it isn’t at all self-evident. is it?

is there a settled catholic definition of the term?

 

[teak421]

is there a settled catholic definition of the term?

Tell me… what is your definition of faith? I enjoy hearing from the “spiritual but not religious” folks on this…

• Michael