What evidence?

[Russell_SA]

Everyone starts off at a default position of not believing what someone is about to present until that person presenting their belief meets the burden of proof for the listening audience. The other way around is to assume everyone believes every idea possible before someone presents their case which is not ever the case in reality. So by default, the jury members do presume the person on trial is innocent of the charge put to them until the prosecution presents their reasons for why the prosecution believes the defendant is guilty. It’s not a “legal” sense to presume someone is innocent unless that jury member already has a bias towards people that look like that defendant. Oh she’s white and privileged, so she must have done it or had been involved. The assumption is that the jury selection removed people of bias so that everyone starts off as having no assumptions either way about the defendant. They don’t believe she is guilty though because, again, the default position is to assume the defendant is an innocent person. Just as the case for god being charged with “existence”. The default position is to not believe god is guilty of existence until the prosecution makes their case for why god would be guilty of existence. This is so basically obvious that I’m going to assume that you are just trying to be argumentative and ignoring what I am actually presenting and just wasting my time with this response and everyone else reading this.

I was pointing out an example where the prosecution only needed very little evidence to present their case. You were talking about the idea that someone being a defendant must have a justified amount of evidence against them for the prosecution to charge them with a crime. So the example in the story was where the prosecution needed only someone’s testimony to charge the defendant and no actual evidence at all. The point was to show that the amount of evidence needed for someone to believe something could be very little for the person believing it and would be not be enough for other people. You know this is what I was presenting, so I don’t know why you keep wasting my time and the readers’ time with these absurd responses.

I see people using those two words in our culture as interchangeable. Ex: Person A believes X. Person B asks them to prove why that is the case, why that is justified to believe that. That’s all I see that as being. If they can’t prove their case, aka justify that belief to the audience, then the audience will not be swayed to believe their conclusion is valid.

 

[tonyrey]

How are natural disasters a choice of free will? How is distributing limited resources around, but still not enough to have people survive, a choice of free will? How is cancer, larva that eats the retina of children’s eyes, drought and blight in crops, people being too ignorant to solve their problems, free will?

Irrelevant. I was responding to:

So this deity is both devil and deity now? I believe that is a logically grounded conclusion from your statement.

Belittling the experience of being human has no bearing on that experience. It’s like saying, being human can only merely run 13 mph. Yes, that is the case. Belittling it, does not change the case of that being part of the human experience though. Also, when you discover a truth about this reality that you don’t like doesn’t mean your invented solution to that problem actually exists or manifests in reality. How reality actually is, is completely independent from how you would like it to be or your imagined solutions to that problem. I don’t like volcanos taking out my village, so I’m going to invent a deity to appease so that the volcano doesn’t erupt even though I can not demonstrate in any way that deity is actually there at all. That’s really all that argument is that you presented. Your imagined deity to solve the free will problem and the problem of good and evil. You actually have to demonstrate that deity is any different than every other imagined deity through history to protect us from the dark.

Non sequitur. There is a difference between moral evil and natural evil.

No baby Huey - I’m pointing out different levels of good and evil. You can still have those in a world, just not that extreme. Just like growing up in your parent’s house. We’ve all experienced what life is like with someone looking after our best interests and yet we still have good and bad days. But, the lucky ones, didn’t experience child rape or their parents killing off your brother and sister just so that you can experience the full affects off “good” and “evil”. Since there is that extreme level of “evil” in the world, people that have to go through those events are justified in concluding that a loving/all-powerful/everywhere deity does not exist. There still could be a deity out there, but it doesn’t care for them, so they don’t believe in the first idea of the deity and would not want to worship or have anything to do with the deity that they’ve actually had to experience.

It remains to be explained how free will can be modified so that excessive evil ceases to exist.

To many of the religious, their religion does not teach that hell is what you are describing and they are backing this up with scriptural references for their justification. I don’t care what kind of hell people believe in because it’s just arguing over who’s better imagined never-never land is worse.

What others believe is irrelevant. It also remains to be proved that there is a “better** imagined **never-never land”. Otherwise it is a gratuitous assertion. Beliefs are not necessarily false: otherwise the belief that God doesn’t exist would be untenable!

Disagree. See I can make statements and then not explain why I made that statement. It’s quick and glib and dismissive and shows that you really don’t care about discussing the points and come to why people have different understandings on this topic. It’s cute but annoying.

You need to cite those alleged statements…

 

[minkymurph]

Everyone starts off at a default position of not believing what someone is about to present until that person presenting their belief meets the burden of proof for the listening audience. The other way around is to assume everyone believes every idea possible before someone presents their case which is not ever the case in reality. So by default, the jury members do presume the person on trial is innocent of the charge put to them until the prosecution presents their reasons for why the prosecution believes the defendant is guilty. It’s not a “legal” sense to presume someone is innocent unless that jury member already has a bias towards people that look like that defendant. Oh she’s white and privileged, so she must have done it or had been involved. The assumption is that the jury selection removed people of bias so that everyone starts off as having no assumptions either way about the defendant. They don’t believe she is guilty though because, again, the default position is to assume the defendant is an innocent person. Just as the case for god being charged with “existence”. The default position is to not believe god is guilty of existence until the prosecution makes their case for why god would be guilty of existence. This is so basically obvious that I’m going to assume that you are just trying to be argumentative and ignoring what I am actually presenting and just wasting my time with this response and everyone else reading this.

I was pointing out an example where the prosecution only needed very little evidence to present their case. You were talking about the idea that someone being a defendant must have a justified amount of evidence against them for the prosecution to charge them with a crime. So the example in the story was where the prosecution needed only someone’s testimony to charge the defendant and no actual evidence at all. The point was to show that the amount of evidence needed for someone to believe something could be very little for the person believing it and would be not be enough for other people. You know this is what I was presenting, so I don’t know why you keep wasting my time and the readers’

First may I apologise for not breaking up the post as I currently do not have access to my computer, am on my phone and copy paste is not working well in conjunction with finger.

Juries do not start off not believing anything. It is naive to think they do. It is naive to think the atheist, theist or agnostic commences discussion about God having no pre determined opinions or beliefs but unlike a jury, neither need to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt.
Your To Kill a Mocking Bird example proves a jury can convict and that conviction can stand where evidence is lacking.

Jurys are required by law to presume the defendant is innocent in consideration of evidence. Anyone who knows anything about litigation knows the burden of proof shifts during the course of a trial in terms of the prosecution edging ahead or the defence defence. When the jury retires they receive direction from the judge. Yes miscarriages of justice have happened in terms of charging someone with a crime, but in contemporary democracies people are not by and large arrested for no reason at all and subsequently charged with a crime.

You have made an assumption about me. So much for evidence atheists claim to value highly, but I am now entitled to make assumptions. My assumption is you only post on CAF to be argumentative, and you are in no position to determine if I am wasting readers time or not. I assume you waste my time in trying to compare a debate concerning tbe existence of God with a criminal trial as in my view this comparison cannot be made. You are entitled to think it can, but can you state for certain readers of this thread will think my arguments are a waste of your time, but you are in no position to conclude other readers think the same. If they do, I have every confidence they can speak for themselves and in fact would prefer to. I agree there some people need little evidence to believe something and for others no amount of evidence would be enough, but I did not I my wildest dreams think this was your point. To my knowledge your point was juries initially are atheists. My point was this is not the case but they won’t render judgements on the bas8s of belief and their belief as opposed to what can be proven may be closer to the truth.

 

[Bradski]

It remains to be explained how free will can be modified so that excessive evil ceases to exist.

I’ve been thinking about this Tony. I’ve got an idea. It may sound a little off-the-wall, but bear with me.

You know that if you do something wrong, there’s a chance you might be punished for it. But no guarantee. And hey, the punishment isn’t much of a deterrant anyway, otherwise the jails would be empty.

So how about we make the punishment really, really severe. So severe that no-one in their right mind would consider doing anything evil. And let’s guarantee that they’d be punished every time. Do the crime, do the time.

Sound good?

And to make sure everyone knew we weren’t messing around, let’s make the punishment last FOREVER! Yeah, it’s not exactly justice, I know. But let’s face it, anyone who knew that eternal punishment was waiting for them would not, and I mean most definately NOT, consider doing something evil.

Let’s face it, the only people who would do anything wrong would be those who didn’t really believe it.

Whaddya think?

 

[tonyrey]

I’ve been thinking about this Tony. I’ve got an idea. It may sound a little off-the-wall, but bear with me.

You know that if you do something wrong, there’s a chance you might be punished for it. But no guarantee. And hey, the punishment isn’t much of a deterrant anyway, otherwise the jails would be empty.

So how about we make the punishment really, really severe. So severe that no-one in their right mind would consider doing anything evil. And let’s guarantee that they’d be punished every time. Do the crime, do the time.

Sound good?

And to make sure everyone knew we weren’t messing around, let’s make the punishment last FOREVER! Yeah, it’s not exactly justice, I know. But let’s face it, anyone who knew that eternal punishment was waiting for them would not, and I mean most definately NOT, consider doing something evil.

Let’s face it, the only people who would do anything wrong would be those who didn’t really believe it.

Whaddya think?

People are not as logical as you imply, Brad. They don’t spend their lives thinking about what will happen after they die. Another problem is how to compel everyone to believe in eternal punishment…

 

[Bradski]

People are not as logical as you imply, Brad. They don’t spend their lives thinking about what will happen after they die. Another problem is how to compel everyone to believe in eternal punishment…

Just show them what it’s like, Tony. Just show them. Who would then want to commit evil?

 

[tonyrey]

People are not as logical as you imply, Brad. They don’t spend their lives thinking about what will happen after they die. Another problem is how to compel everyone

Fortunately I’m not in that unenviable situation nor do I intend to be… After all hell is not a trap but a transaction! Absolute freedom for the price of isolation. How about it, Brad?

%between%

 

[tonyrey]

Fortunately I’m not in that unenviable situation nor do I intend to be… After all hell is not a trap but a transaction! Absolute freedom for the price of isolation. How about it, Brad?

There’s no doubt we can have too much of a good thing. Unrestrained ambition has been the downfall of many talented individuals who overestimate their power and importance. That is further proof that physical causes alone cannot explain our existence. In fact they are of far less significance than our thoughts, emotions and decisions. Otherwise this forum wouldn’t exist! If you want evidence here it is…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

People are not as logical as you imply, Brad. They don’t spend their lives thinking about what will happen after they die. Another problem is how to compel everyone to believe in eternal punishment…

Generally speaking, when people are on their deathbed, they do not have to be compelled to believe in hell. Since they have many sins to atone for, the suspicion that hell exists just naturally surfaces. That’s why we get so many deathbed conversions. My atheist grandfather asked me to pray for him shortly before he died. My atheist uncle started wearing a cross shortly before he died. No compulsion there. Many atheists just before they die are willing to gamble they might find out they are dead wrong when they are dead.

 

[tonyrey]

Generally speaking, when people are on their deathbed, they do not have to be compelled to believe in hell. Since they have many sins to atone for, the suspicion that hell exists just naturally surfaces. That’s why we get so many deathbed conversions. My atheist grandfather asked me to pray for him shortly before he died. My atheist uncle started wearing a cross shortly before he died. No compulsion there. Many atheists just before they die are willing to gamble they might find out they are dead wrong when they are dead.

A fascinating and amusing post, Charlie! Dogmatic atheism doesn’t survive the test of time. It is impossible to live in a meaningless world from which the only escape is death. In practice we all have faith, hope and love for some one even if it’s only ourselves! That alone is evidence that persons and animals are far more precious than anything else and cannot be reduced to freaks of nature. Even David Hume conceded that there is purpose everywhere - without explaining how it originated!

 

[tonyrey]

Generally speaking, when people are on their deathbed, they do not have to be compelled to believe in hell. Since they have many sins to atone for, the suspicion that hell exists just naturally surfaces. That’s why we get so many deathbed conversions. My atheist grandfather asked me to pray for him shortly before he died. My atheist uncle started wearing a cross shortly before he died. No compulsion there. Many atheists just before they die are willing to gamble they might find out they are dead wrong when they are dead.

A fascinating and amusing post, Charlie! Dogmatic atheism doesn’t survive the test of time. It is impossible to live in a meaningless world from which the only escape is death. In practice we all have faith, hope and love for some one even if it’s only ourselves! That alone is the evidence that persons and animals are far more precious than anything else and cannot be reduced to freaks of nature. Even David Hume conceded that there is purpose everywhere - without explaining how it originated!

 

[tonyrey]

A fascinating and amusing post, Charlie! Dogmatic atheism doesn’t survive the test of time. It is impossible to live in a meaningless world from which the only escape is death. In practice we all have faith, hope and love for some one even if it’s only ourselves! That alone is the evidence that persons and animals are far more precious than anything else and cannot be reduced to freaks of nature. Even David Hume conceded that there is purpose everywhere - without explaining how it originated!

There can be no more conclusive evidence than the fact that every time we use our power of reason we are behaving purposefully whereas in a Godless universe it would be a meaningless, mechanistic process. Computers don’t reason; they are programmed by rational minds.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Even David Hume conceded that there is purpose everywhere - without explaining how it originated!

Samuel Johnson referred to Hume as an atheist. It is one of the more interesting things about atheists that they see purpose everywhere but cannot explain why there is purpose anywhere.

To put it another way, they cannot explain why there is order rather than chaos.

 

[IWantGod]

I’ve been thinking about this Tony. I’ve got an idea. It may sound a little off-the-wall, but bear with me.

You know that if you do something wrong, there’s a chance you might be punished for it. But no guarantee. And hey, the punishment isn’t much of a deterrant anyway, otherwise the jails would be empty.

So how about we make the punishment really, really severe. So severe that no-one in their right mind would consider doing anything evil. And let’s guarantee that they’d be punished every time. Do the crime, do the time.

Sound good?

And to make sure everyone knew we weren’t messing around, let’s make the punishment last FOREVER! Yeah, it’s not exactly justice, I know. But let’s face it, anyone who knew that eternal punishment was waiting for them would not, and I mean most definately NOT, consider doing something evil.

Let’s face it, the only people who would do anything wrong would be those who didn’t really believe it.

Whaddya think?

Is that your theory of how the idea of hell was invented?

 

[Bradski]

Is that your theory of how the idea of hell was invented?

Darn tootin’.

 

[tonyrey]

Samuel Johnson referred to Hume as an atheist. It is one of the more interesting things about atheists that they see purpose everywhere but cannot explain why there is purpose anywhere.

To put it another way, they cannot explain why there is order rather than chaos.

Hume took refuge in backgammon when he grasped the implications of his argument that the self doesn’t exist and thought is merely “a little agitation of the brain”. I admire his honesty in virtually admitting his scepticism is self-destructive! Few atheists realise they are contradicting themselves when they undermine the belief that we are rational beings. Independent thought in mindless machines is an infantile fantasy even if they are biological.
Being alive doesn’t automatically confer insight into anything, let alone the nature of reality!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Hume took refuge in backgammon when he grasped the implications of his argument that the self doesn’t exist and thought is merely “a little agitation of the brain”. I admire his honesty in virtually admitting his scepticism is self-destructive! Few atheists realise they are contradicting themselves when they undermine the belief that we are rational beings. Independent thought in mindless machines is an infantile fantasy even if they are biological.
Being alive doesn’t automatically confer insight into anything, let alone the nature of reality!

“The life of man is of no greater importance to the universe than that of an oyster.”
David Hume

Well, that’s self evident, isn’t it? The universe does not contain a mind with which to value the importance of men or oysters. But clearly ,because the universe cannot think, it is of some value to say that the life of man is of greater importance than the universe itself. True, the universe will still exist after man ceases to exist; but by then who would even care whether it was important that it still exists?

What Hume discounts as important is that God only created the universe so that
He could create man.

 

[Bradski]

What Hume discounts as important is that God only created the universe so that He could create man.

Including, aparently, the bits that man can’t access. Which is almost all of it. Bit of overkill, methinks.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Including, aparently, the bits that man can’t access. Which is almost all of it. Bit of overkill, methinks.

The part that man cannot access still has a purpose.

To mystify man as to the greatness of God?