Burden shifting

Artie wrote:

otseng wrote: Looks like this will be a very interesting thread…

Bust Nak wrote: [Replying to post 1 by wiploc]Only one thing. The continual failure for theists to demonstrate the existence of any gods, for the past 6000 years. That is enough for me to shift from weak atheism to strong atheism.

This is shifting the burden. The OP is asking for justification that gods do not exist. Claiming that theism has no valid arguments (which I disagree with) is not justification for atheism. And even if there is NO argument for theism, on your argument alone, it can only lead one to agnosticism, not strong atheism.

Well, you are a strong atheist regarding the existence of Thor and Poseidon I presume? What is your justification for being a strong atheist regarding them?

Well, yes, I am… but so is practically everyone on this planet. So, it’s not really an important or relevant issue. Nobody is really arguing for the existence of Thor or Poseidon.

This thread also is not specifying any particular god, but gods in general. Even if you disprove Thor doesn’t exist, it does not mean that no gods exist.

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=672913#p672913

Artie wrote: Why would I disprove Thor doesn’t exist?

This thread is not about Thor, but about the general claim that no gods at all exist. This is what you need to provide justification for.

I know you are stuck between a rock and a hard place and I won’t press you further on this issue because you believe in the Bible which must be completely bewildering because on the one hand it says:

Actually, it’s not too hard to answer this, but it’s not relevant to this thread.

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=673133#p673133

Bust Nak wrote: We don’t have the burden of proof. I am justified to shift to strong atheism exactly because theists have consistently failed to meet their burden of proof.

OK, I’ll take it then that you have no arguments/evidence that gods do not exist.

Artie wrote: Your position would then be “agnostic strong atheist” or “agnostic atheist” not just “strong atheist”.

I would agree with this.

Bust Nak wrote: Yep, that’s what I would call myself, an agnostic strong atheist; but otseng seem to be treating agnosticism as the same thing as weak atheism, and I am frankly tired of debating which definition should be used.

I don’t want to debate semantics either. The point is that if you have no valid arguments that gods do not exist, then you fail to justify the belief of atheism.

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=673136#p673136

wiploc wrote:1. There are some gods that theists would be justified in believing in if they existed. They would leave evidence. But that evidence is lacking. Those gods seem not to exist.

So, are you claiming there is zero evidence that has been presented by theists for the existence of God?

And that is my whole argument: we don’t believe in god because we don’t believe in the Easter bunny. Jupiter and the Easter bunny, Shiva and Santa Claus, Thor and the Great Pumpkin, in each case the reason for disbelief is the same. And those reasons apply with equal strength to Jehovah. Actually, there is an extra reason to disbelieve in Jehovah, but I’ll have to come back to that. For now, let it suffice to say that you have just as good a reason to disbelieve in Jehovah as to disbelieve in the Great Pumpkin.

It doesn’t matter how many strawmen you tear down; it doesn’t strengthen your case. Who’s arguing for the existence of the Easter bunny, Jupiter, Santa, Great Pumpkin, etc? Atheists continually claim that no evidence exists for these gods. Well, that’s because nobody is arguing that they do exist.

Now, if you want to disprove the existence of Yahweh, then that’s a different matter….

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=673304#p673304

wiploc wrote:

otseng wrote:

wiploc wrote:1. There are some gods that theists would be justified in believing in if they existed. They would leave evidence. But that evidence is lacking. Those gods seem not to exist.

So, are you claiming there is zero evidence that has been presented by theists for the existence of God?

I believe that, yes.

I suspect the issue is what you would consider acceptable evidence for God.

If you’d like to discuss specific apologist arguments, I suggest we start another thread on that topic.

I barely have time to even participate in one thread. When this thread is done, that is a possibility.

And that is my whole argument: we don’t believe in god because we don’t believe in the Easter bunny. Jupiter and the Easter bunny, Shiva and Santa Claus, Thor and the Great Pumpkin, in each case the reason for disbelief is the same. And those reasons apply with equal strength to Jehovah. Actually, there is an extra reason to disbelieve in Jehovah, but I’ll have to come back to that. For now, let it suffice to say that you have just as good a reason to disbelieve in Jehovah as to disbelieve in the Great Pumpkin.

It doesn’t matter how many strawmen you tear down; it doesn’t strengthen your case. Who’s arguing for the existence of the Easter bunny, Jupiter, Santa, Great Pumpkin, etc? Atheists continually claim that no evidence exists for these gods. Well, that’s because nobody is arguing that they do exist.

They aren’t strawmen; they are illustrations. You are justified in believing that the Great Pumpkin does not exist. Your reasoning is good. The same reasoning justifies believing that other gods don’t exist.

To show that they aren’t strawmen, you’ll have to show who actually believes they exist in this thread.

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=673481#p673481

wiploc wrote:

otseng wrote: OK, I’ll get to my point. What evidence do you have that gods do not exist?

I have posted my argument repeatedly in this thread.

Would you agree that evidence is not the same thing as an argument?

And yet, I can come up with evidence that the earth exists, and I’ll be surprised if you come up with evidence that gods exist.

I have no burden (in this thread) to provide any evidence that a god exists.

For me, nothing counts as a god unless it is extraordinary in some way. If you can’t fly, or smash suns, or walk on water, or create universes, or stop time, or otherwise have some extraordinary power, then, by definition, you aren’t a god.

Sure. Attacking ordinary, mortal gods (Caesar, statues, etc) is pointless. There is no need to even bring those up, let alone argue that they are not really considered to be a god.

Call this the Russell’s teapot category. It would be weird if that teapot were there. And there’s no reason to think it is there. Reasonable people, then, assume that the teapot is not there.

I already said we can ignore this.

Theists are eager to claim that these gods exist. They offer up evidence all the time. But the evidence turns out to be false or fraudulent. (You can’t tell me that William Lane Craig, for instance, doesn’t know he’s talking nonsense.)

Actually, I have high regard for Dr Craig. Yes, he uses the same arguments over and over. But, interestingly, atheists still have a hard time debating him, even though they know exactly what he’ll say in a debate. (For example, the William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens – Does God Exist? debate)

As for evidence that turns out to be false or fraudulent, that is a gross misrepresentation of apologetic arguments. Sure, some are false, but not all are.

We believe, based on countless examples, that the evidence for the kind of god that leaves evidence, is always the work of a motivated believer.

Actually, it doesn’t matter what the motivation of the person is. The only thing that matters is the arguments and evidence that he presents. He could have improper motives, but he could still be correct.

But there turns out not to be any reason to think that such gods exist.

So, your argument boils down to that theists have not presented any evidence for theism so atheism is true?

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=674002#p674002

Artie wrote:

otseng wrote: OK, I’ll get to my point. What evidence do you have that gods do not exist?

1. If you are standing on a street corner without traffic lights you look left and right and left and listen for any cars coming. If you detect no evidence of any cars coming you assume that no cars are coming and cross the street. That is the rational approach. If two people are standing on the street corner and one detects no evidence of any cars coming and gets ready to cross and the other stops him and asks “why did you deem it safe to cross, what evidence do you have that no cars are coming?” I would assume that something was wrong with this person. Wouldn’t you?

However, that’s not what (strong) atheists are claiming. They are claiming that no cars exist at all.

2. At http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat … elieve-in/ there are two lists. The list on the left is a list of gods Christians believe don’t exist, on the right is a list of gods strong atheists believe don’t exist. Both Christians and strong atheists believe these gods don’t exist, but for some reason Christians have made one single exception to their belief that gods don’t exist. The only difference between Christians and strong atheists is that strong atheists haven’t made this one exception. What is your justification for believing all these gods don’t exist?

Why do people keep asking for theists to provide justification for specific gods not existing? There is no burden in this thread for Christians to argue that Thor or whatever fictional god one presents is not real.

For simplicity sake, strike out all those gods that nobody really believes in (everything in the left side of the list). There’s no need to even bring those up anymore in the discussions (including Santa, Easter bunny, etc). That only leaves Yahweh. What evidence do you have that Yahweh does not exist?

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=674014#p674014

wiploc wrote:

otseng wrote:

wiploc wrote:

otseng wrote: OK, I’ll get to my point. What evidence do you have that gods do not exist?

I have posted my argument repeatedly in this thread.

Would you agree that evidence is not the same thing as an argument?

Yes.

Good. Then what evidence is there that gods do not exist?

But there turns out not to be any reason to think that such gods exist.

So, your argument boils down to that theists have not presented any evidence for theism so atheism is true?

I think that’s unfair, a misrepresentation.

I’m willing to be corrected.

You stated:
“Thus, once again, we find ourselves dealing with extraordinary claims and no evidence.”

You also mentioned the problem of evil, but that only deals with the Christian God. It does not address the general claim that no gods exist.

You had summarized the arguments early on in post 6:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v … 594#672594

Arguments 1-3 in effect are claiming that theists have no good justification for theism.
Argument 4 is attacking the Bible (which I’ll address later) and not addressing atheism in general.

So, why would my analysis be a misrepresentation?

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=674242#p674242

wiploc wrote:

otseng wrote: Good. Then what evidence is there that gods do not exist?

Fine.

The evidence: the gods who would produce evidence if they existed do not in fact produce evidence.

The argument:
a) The gods who would produce evidence if they existed do not in fact produce evidence. Therefore they are reasonably believed not to exist.
b) The gods who would not produce evidence even if they did exist are also (because of occam’s razor) reasonably believed not to exist.
Therefore, gods in general are reasonably believed not to exist.

I would take issue that this is actually evidence. I would also take issue that there is no evidence for the existence of God.

But, let’s go with your reasoning. If I just produce one evidence for God, would it disprove your claim of justification for atheism?

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=674701#p674701

Artie wrote: The Christian has to explain why he has made the exception because claiming that one god exists is a positive claim.

Sure, I think Christians definitely do need to provide evidence and arguments for their beliefs.

The strong atheist needn’t explain or justify anything.

This, I disagree with. If this is true, the whole point of this thread is moot.

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=674702#p674702

KenRU wrote: [Replying to post 262 by otseng]

Yahweh is eternal, all-powerful, holy, creator, redeemer, transcendent, and many other attributes. To my knowledge, Thor is none of these.
Well, both are gods, are they not?

Well, you are a poster on this forum right? So, let’s use your logic.

KenRU and Skybringr are members of this forum.
Skybringr has been banned.
Therefore KenRU will be banned.

Of course, this is fallacious. The problem is that KenRU and Skybringr do not have the same properties. Skybringr used excessive profanity. Only if you also use excessive profanity will you get instantly banned.

Yes, Thor and Yahweh are considered gods. But, I already demonstrated that they do not share the same properties. So, just because they are gods, does not automatically mean that both do not exist.

Or are you arguing that all that matters is which ever one has a more creative origin story? Or all that matters is which story provides said deity with more powers?

Neither.

I thought this was all relative to justifying the belief that gods do not exist? If the justification comes down to whichever story is more creative, then I’ll go with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Creativity has no bearing on truth.

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=674803#p674803

Willum wrote: So I think the only way to conclusively proof God or Gods don’t exist is to show they were created by men. This is easier to do than following the insanity of proving something doesn’t exist.

This would be a good approach. At least this would eliminate many of the gods.

However, I would disagree that proving something does not exist is insanity (as already pointed out by McCulloch).

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=674960#p674960

KenRU wrote: So the absence of a natural explanation justifies a supernatural explanation?

On the condition that if a naturalistic explanation is definitively found to be true, then it would falsify the supernatural explanation. In other words, the supernatural explanation has to be falsifiable. If a supernatural explanation (or any explanation for that matter) is offered, and it is not in principle falsifiable, then it’s not really an explanation.

For example, suppose I tell you that the light in your basement is flickering because your house was actually built on top of a native American burial ground and that Indian spirits have come to haunt you. Then you show that the lightbulb was not screwed in properly. You screw it in and it stops flickering. Then I say that it stopped flickering because the Indian spirits are now resting and will come back later. The supernatural Indian ghost explanation is not falsifiable, so it’s not really a valid explanation.

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=675014#p675014

KenRU wrote: And how do we know these properties? From man.

Isn’t practically everything we learn from man? Most things that we learn are taught to us. So, even if the knowledge of whatever god is taught from man, it does not necessarily mean it could not be true.

Then how do you justify that properties matter?

It’s relevant when comparing things.

Please explain how the properties of the gods matter then.

If you’re going to argue that gods do not exist, you cannot just pick a subset and say because that subset is false, then the entire set is false. This would only apply if everything in the set and subset shared identical properties. Since Thor and Yahweh do not have identical properties, then showing that Thor does not exist does not show that Yahweh does not exist.

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=675015#p675015

KenRU wrote: [Replying to post 363 by otseng]

Isn’t practically everything we learn from man? Most things that we learn are taught to us. So, even if the knowledge of whatever god is taught from man, it does not necessarily mean it could not be true.
Exactly, which goes right back to my point. The origin story (created by man) determines (by your argument) how believable the supernatural being is. By this argument wouldn’t most major religions be of equal believability then? If not, then the better origin does (by your argument) result in a more believable deity. Or, do you have access to some other proof of god’s existence?

What I’m referring to is not just religious texts, but any texts – history books, science books, novels, etc. My point is that just because something is written by man, that by itself does not mean what it contains is either true or false.

What makes something believable is to investigate the claims and see if it lines up with evidence. The Bible makes the claim that the universe had a beginning. Does that line up with evidence? Bear in mind, it’s only recent that science has come to claim that the universe had a beginning. 100 years ago, very few scientists believed this.

You do not have a true set or subset to play with.

The set is all gods. If that set is not a true set to play with, then how can atheists make the claim that nothing is in that set?

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=675142#p675142

Divine Insight wrote:

otseng wrote: God is the ultimate creator. George Carlin is not.

But WHO is God?

Whenever we’re debating whether or not “God” exists in general, and I keep bringing up the Biblical picture of God, you seem to object that I’m constantly “ranting” about Christianity.

It’s not really my burden in this thread to argue for God. This whole topic came up because of the atheists’ assertion that there is zero evidence for God. I’m simply countering that assertion by bringing up the cosmological argument and the moral argument.

And if there is supposedly some “objective morality” exactly WHERE are we supposed to find this objective morality?

I’m not specifying where it should come from. Again, I’m just simply refuting atheistic claims that no evidence exists for God.

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=680943#p680943

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=681233#p681233