The burden of proof is on believers to prove God exists (according to atheist philosphers)

[inocente]

It’s silly to argue with materialists. They have no imagination.

Inability to imagine is a medical condition called aphantasia.

Got stuck wondering why imagination might be needed. Because God is an imaginary friend?

Perhaps not quite what you meant.

 

[Bradski]

… and i do this in a way, that will not show in genetic pattern studies and the other scientific stuff they will invent in a couple of thousands of years…

So you accept that it is scientifically impossible. And the only way you can tie in what actually happened with what you have been told is…God hid the evidence.

That is quite a desperate argument.

 

[SyroMalankara]

So you accept that it is scientifically impossible. And the only way you can tie in what actually happened with what you have been told is…God hid the evidence.

That is quite a desperate argument.

Hid? How about we don’t know everything, but it’s quite a treat trying to find out. The journey there is more than half the fun.

 

[Bradski]

Hid? How about we don’t know everything, but it’s quite a treat trying to find out. The journey there is more than half the fun.

That’s just the point, Syro. The story was developed long before anyone knew how the world actually works. So accepting that we are all descended from one couple seemed quite obvious and could be accepted as a fact (as it still is by some).

If the story had referred to a small tribe on the African plains as opposed to a single couple in the Middle East and God had given these 30 or so people a soul and we were all descended from them, you would accept it without question.

And what would your reaction be to a small Christian sect who insisted that it wasn’t a tribe but two individuals.

You’d treat their claims as being as bizarre as those who claim the world is 6,000 years old. I mean, the Catholoc church supports science. It says science doesn’t contradict what it teaches! Yet what this ‘A and E’ crowd are claiming cannot have happened.

 

[tonyrey]

It is not only tactically unwise but also logically unsound! As Lear said, “Nothing shall come of nothing”…

Is there any evidence that our universe is the sum total of reality?

Burden of proof is usually chosen in the context of the issue to be proven and what in the KNOWN circumstances would be the best approach to catch that elusive thing called “truth”.

Truth itself is not scientifically detectable. It takes us beyond physics to metaphysics…

In sciences experience has shown that its a rather useful approach that either some proof has to be provided for a claim or that a repeatable method for falsification has to exist, the more the claim alters the current scope the more sound proof/methods of falsification should be.

Do you base all your beliefs, values, choices and decisions on scientific evidence? If not why not?

But before criminal courts, one applies different burden of proof and different methods, because the known circumstances are vastly different (namely the nagging problem, that finding evidence of innocence after execution is a bit frustrating); and in civil courts again a different standard is applied.

So to determine where the burden of proof should sensibly fall, one should logically first consider what is known about the respective issue and then derive some guidelines.

The respective issue here is, “what” “exists”/“existed”/“will exist” “outside”, “before” and/or “after” “this” “universe”.

For consistency i put every word with an unclear definition and meaning in this context in “” (though i am a bit scpetical about “and/or”; mybe there is a third on the “outside” besides “and” and “or”).

Is there empirical evidence that the universe is eternal or emerged from nothing? Why should it be an exception to the principle of causality?

And its immidieately obvious, that we might even fail to find words to formulate the issue at hand; if we already fail at that, there is even no need to consider, that we actually know exactly zero about the respective issue (because we have no way to reliably identify anything “outside” “this” “universe”), to conclude that we cannot in any sensible way decide the burden of proof question. And while the argument might be raised, that at least parts of religion considering events inside our universe are not hindered by this problem, that is a logical error.

Ignorance is not a sound basis for any conclusions, let alone the hypothesis that nothing exists but the physical universe!

Because all our scientific knowledge about this universe rests on the assumption, that it is a closed system without interaction with the “outside”; but as soon as invisible pink flying unicorns beam into and “out” of “this” “universe”, its no longer a closed system and all our knowledge is naught at least to issues related to that unicorns and their interactions with this universe. Hence, we can neither apply our for the assumption of a closed universe very useful usual burden of proof (as we could for example, if someone claimed that in this unisverse in accord with the laws of this universe invisible pink flaying unicorns exist; for that issue burden of proof falls with the one claiming such thing, cause from science we know that the laws of this universe make the existance of inivisible pink flying unicorns at least rather unusual and unexpectable) nor can we decide which to apply instead.

It doesn’t follow from the theory that this is a closed universe that it is unique or independent of any other form of reality. Pascal made the point that we are superior to the universe because we are aware it exists whereas there is no evidence the universe knows we exist. That fact alone suggests that physics is an incomplete explanation of reality.

And that already follows directly from natural laws, namely energy conservation is only fulfilled in a closed system; with my beaming-capable unicorns there is no conservation of energy in nature, at least whereever these unicorns supposedly pop up; and that is a very fundamental problem, because energy conservation is mathematically connected to time symmetry meaning if those invisible pink unicorns supposedly pop into our universe we might be forced to wave goodbye to causalty, at least in the current understanding and at least where one of those buggers supposedly is around.

Hence, it is not meaningful to discuss burden of proof in respect to a search for truth in the context of “outside” “things” like such “outside” unicorns or God.

(Although of course it might be fun, meaningful and reasonable in this context for other reasons, for example to understand why believers/atheists consider their respective position reasonable, as mental exercise, etc.) I can not think of any actually logically sound position regarding burden of proof about issues pertaining to things “outside” and/or “before” and/or “after” our universe.

If physical energy is the sole form of energy all our thoughts and conclusions are determined by events over which we have no control. In other words materialism is self-destructive. The demise of logical positivism was due to the realisation that the verification principle cannot be verified by sense data…

 

[tonyrey]

That’s just the point, Syro. The story was developed long before anyone knew how the world actually works. So accepting that we are all descended from one couple seemed quite obvious and could be accepted as a fact (as it still is by some).

If the story had referred to a small tribe on the African plains as opposed to a single couple in the Middle East and God had given these 30 or so people a soul and we were all descended from them, you would accept it without question.

And what would your reaction be to a small Christian sect who insisted that it wasn’t a tribe but two individuals.

You’d treat their claims as being as bizarre as those who claim the world is 6,000 years old. I mean, the Catholoc church supports science. It says science doesn’t contradict what it teaches! Yet what this ‘A and E’ crowd are claiming cannot have happened.

Is there any reason to believe it is impossible or even unlikely for two individuals rather than a community to have been the first members of the human race? Is there nothing that distinguishes us from the great apes apart from our physical aspects?

 

[Bradski]

Is there any reason to believe it is impossible or even unlikely for two individuals rather than a community to have been the first members of the human race?

I notice that you put a ‘confused’ emoticon after that question. I could point to enough information on the matter that would take you the rest of the year to read and reduce the amount of confusion that you might be experiencing.

I am again nonplussed in having people argue against things about which they admit they have no understanding.

In case you were still unsure, the answer to your question is ‘Yes’. And please don’t expect me to spend my rather valuable time in explaining it all to you. It’s something you are going to have to investigate yourself.

 

[Cheiron]

Is there any reason to believe it is impossible or even unlikely for two individuals rather than a community to have been the first members of the human race? Is there nothing that distinguishes us from the great apes apart from our physical aspects?

As the science stands now, there is no reason to believe humans descended from two individuals. Such a bottleneck would definitely show up in DNA. It doesn’t. The human population, at it’s smallest, was around a few thousand. That was 70.000/75.000 years ago, long after homo sapiens had already appeared on the scene. The causes are still being debated, but the fact is that humans were nearly wiped out. Scientific articles are easily found through a bit of googling.

My answer to your second question would be our brain, although you can argue that is a physical aspect too. The brain has made all the difference.

 

[Bradski]

There is a requirement upon you to fully understand the reasons behind claims, for example, that God exists, and to refute those reasons.

I didn’t need to investigate any and every claim made by any given Christian to come to the conclusion that the claims are based on false assumptions. Although I have pretty much done so.

I didn’t need to debate all matters theological with scores of Christians over very many years to come to the same conclusion. Although I have.

I didn’t need to have spent my hard earned money on books by Christians which attempt to prove the unprovable to come to the same conclusion. Although I am the poorer financially for having done so.

I didn’t need to spend many years attending church and being taught by some quite intelligent people about God and the path I needed to take to ensure my salvation to come to the same conclusion. Although I did.

I didn’t need to examine the different interpretations that various denominations have on Christianity or to investigate the different interpretations that people from the same denominations have to come to the same conclusion. But I did.

I didn’t need to spend any time studying the biological and psychological aspects of evolution to come to the same conclusion. But my book shelves are stacked with works from very many experts in those fields.

I haven’t needed to spend a lot of time thinking about how the world works, how I fit into it, what the meaning is of family and friends, what the definition is of a life lived well, how I can be a good person and what that means in the first instance. Although I have.

The reasons why people believe in God and why they become Christians and why they end up in a particular denomination are not, as you might expect me to say, many and varied. They are actually quite limited and all quite straightforward and I have no need nor indeed inclination to refute why someone does believe.

What I need to do, and I have done, and have spend a considerable amount of time doing, is to decide whether their reasons are applicable to me.

They are not.

 

[Glassjester]

In case you were still unsure, the answer to your question is ‘Yes’. And please don’t expect me to spend my rather valuable time in explaining it all to you. It’s something you are going to have to investigate yourself.

But we do. We do all descend from two common ancestors.

All of us descend patrilineally from Y-Chromosomal Adam.
All of us descend matrilineally from Mitochondrial Eve.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The human population, at it’s smallest, was around a few thousand.

How is this possible given common descent and Darwinian evolutionary theory?

You aren’t claiming a genetic trait or entire class of them arises at the same instant in time and simultaneously in a “few thousand” individuals, are you?

Doesn’t SET rule that out, in principle, by how new genetic traits arise? There has to be one progenitor where the specific traits in question first appear, does there not?

How did “a few thousand” come to be all at once?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I didn’t need to investigate any and every claim made by any given Christian to come to the conclusion that the claims are based on false assumptions. Although I have pretty much done so.

I didn’t need to debate all matters theological with scores of Christians over very many years to come to the same conclusion. Although I have.

I didn’t need to have spent my hard earned money on books by Christians which attempt to prove the unprovable to come to the same conclusion. Although I am the poorer financially for having done so.

I didn’t need to spend many years attending church and being taught by some quite intelligent people about God and the path I needed to take to ensure my salvation to come to the same conclusion. Although I did.

I didn’t need to examine the different interpretations that various denominations have on Christianity or to investigate the different interpretations that people from the same denominations have to come to the same conclusion. But I did.

I didn’t need to spend any time studying the biological and psychological aspects of evolution to come to the same conclusion. But my book shelves are stacked with works from very many experts in those fields.

I haven’t needed to spend a lot of time thinking about how the world works, how I fit into it, what the meaning is of family and friends, what the definition is of a life lived well, how I can be a good person and what that means in the first instance. Although I have.

The reasons why people believe in God and why they become Christians and why they end up in a particular denomination are not, as you might expect me to say, many and varied. They are actually quite limited and all quite straightforward and I have no need nor indeed inclination to refute why someone does believe.

What I need to do, and I have done, and have spend a considerable amount of time doing, is to decide whether their reasons are applicable to me.

They are not.

You are a sincere man, Brad. I never doubted that.

Sincerity, however, does not equate to being correct about everything, or anything, necessarily.

These men…

godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

…all investigated, debated, spent time and money on books, attended church, were taught by intelligent people about God, examined all kinds of interpretations of Christianity, spent a great deal of time studying science and became verified experts in their fields, most lived fulfilled lives and ultimately all decided that they had sufficient reasons for believing in God.

 

[Bradski]

How is this possible given common descent and Darwinian evolutionary theory?

You aren’t claiming a genetic trait or entire class of them arises at the same instant in time and simultaneously in a “few thousand” individuals, are you?

Doesn’t SET rule that out, in principle, by how new genetic traits arise? There has to be one progenitor where the specific traits in question first appear, does there not?

How did “a few thousand” come to be all at once?

You’ll be asking why there are so many monkeys next.

 

[Bradski]

But we do. We do all descend from two common ancestors.

All of us descend patrilineally from Y-Chromosomal Adam.
All of us descend matrilineally from Mitochondrial Eve.

You don’t need to study anything at all to realise that you had one distant ancestor that was female and another that was male.

You need some basic maths to realise that one distant female ancestor is the most recent common ancestor to everyone that is alive today and is equally so for the male.

And you need to study a reasonable amount of genetics to realise that the male common ancestor and the female common ancestor almost certainly lived at different times and in different places and were emphatically not our unique ancestors.

That is, we aren’t uniquely dcended from either one. Just like younare not descended uniquely from one of your great great grandparents - there were 16 of them all chipping in a slice of genetic material.

 

[Rau]

There isn’t one.

If you want to claim that something exists, then there is a requirement on you, should you wish to excercise it, to offer some proof.

An atheist, or at least this one, doesn’t make any claim. He just asserts that the evidence for your particular claim in regard to God’s existence, is not sufficient to assert a personal belief.

There is no requirement on me to prove that God doesn’t exist, because, quite simply, I am not making that claim in the first instance.

Does this mean that you operate on the basis that “maybe there is a God, maybe there is not - I (Bradski) don’t know”?

 

[Bradski]

Does this mean that you operate on the basis that “maybe there is a God, maybe there is not - I (Bradski) don’t know”?

I operate on the basis that the sun will come up tomorrow morning. There is no absolute guarantee that that will happen, but I don’t therefore say: ‘maybe the sun will rise, maybe it won’t’.

 

[Rau]

I operate on the basis that the sun will come up tomorrow morning. There is no absolute guarantee that that will happen, but I don’t therefore say: ‘maybe the sun will rise, maybe it won’t’.

That is “non-responsive” as the lawyers would say.

 

[PRmerger]

I operate on the basis that the sun will come up tomorrow morning. There is no absolute guarantee that that will happen, but I don’t therefore say: ‘maybe the sun will rise, maybe it won’t’.

What does this mean, as far as the question of whether you believe in God?

 

[Aloysium]

What does this mean, as far as the question of whether you believe in God?

It should mean that there exists the possibility that Goodness, Beauty, Truth are one in the Creator, in spite of all the pain and evil that we see in the world. The possibility becomes probable by the fact that the way things are doesn’t sit well with us. Stars go supernova all the time and it doesn’t matter; our existence and especially that of those we love, does.

 

[tonyrey]

As the science stands now, there is no reason to believe humans descended from two individuals. Such a bottleneck would definitely show up in DNA. It doesn’t. The human population, at it’s smallest, was around a few thousand. That was 70.000/75.000 years ago, long after homo sapiens had already appeared on the scene. The causes are still being debated, but the fact is that humans were nearly wiped out. Scientific articles are easily found through a bit of googling.

You are assuming a person consists solely of a body without taking the mind into account. Are all aspects of our mind evident in DNA?

My answer to your second question would be our brain, although you can argue that is a physical aspect too. The brain has made all the difference.

Is there any evidence that **all **our behaviour has physical causes?Can neural impulses explain our beliefs, values, principles, choices, decisions, emotions and power of self-control?