Vote to comment and see the results
avatar
35 Comments
  • Filter by:
  • Agree
  • Unsure
  • Disagree
  • 7 months ago

    There is no god. Due to the "burden of proof" and lack of evidence, it is acceptable to say there is no god.

    • 7 months ago

      @the_logician

      https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

      "An argument from ignorance...is a fallacy in informal logic. It says something is true because it has not yet been proved false...

      Appeals to ignorance are often used to suggest the other side needs to do the proving. Rules of logic place the burden (responsibility) of proving something on the person making the claim."


      If the resolution were "there is insufficient evidence to prove that there is a god", then you would be correct. However, in saying "there is no god", you have made an affirmative statement, and thus have incurred a burden of proof.

    • 7 months ago

      @kyrothehero From the statement, "there is insufficient evidence to prove that there is a god," we can draw the conclusion that "there is no god until proven with evidence," which in short can be said, "there is no god," because it is tacit that there is no yet evidence to prove otherwise.

    • 7 months ago

      @the_logician

      "From the statement, 'there is insufficient evidence to prove that there is a god,' we can draw the conclusion that 'there is no god until proven with evidence' "

      This is a non-sequitur. We don't say "the Hodge conjecture is false until proven with evidence" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hodge_conjecture ).

      "X is unproven" does not imply "X is false until proven".

    • 7 months ago

      @kyrothehero

      If it is known that X is not true, then logically we can conclude that X is false.

    • 7 months ago

      If X is unproven, X is not said to be true.
      Anything that is not true is false.
      If X is not said to be true, it is false.

    • 7 months ago

      Just as in the saying, "innocent until proven guilty," in the scenario we can say, "false until proven to be true."

    • 7 months ago

      @the_logician

      "P1: If X is unproven, X is not said to be true.
      P2: Anything that is not true is false.
      C: If X is not said to be true, it is false."

      First of all, I again cite the Hodge conjecture. It, too, is "not said to be true", but that does not mean that it's false.

      The problem with your syllogism lies in the difference between "X is not said to be true" and "X is not true". Notice the change in wording from P1 to P2; that change in wording is the problem with the syllogism.

      Suppose that I have a jar with a certain number of coins in it, and I have no information about the exact number of coins whatsoever. If we define Z as the statement "the number of coins in the jar is even", then it would be correct to say "Z is not said to be true". However, it would not be correct to say "Z is not true", because that would be equivalent to the affirmative claim "the number of coins in the jar is odd".

      The difference is that "not said to be true" refers either to what we believe or what is proven/unproven, whereas "not true" refers to an active claim.



      "Just as in the saying, 'innocent until proven guilty,' in the scenario we can say, 'false until proven to be true.' "

      "Innocent until proven guilty" is taken out of context here.

      The literal statement "innocent until proven guilty" is demonstrably false. Ted Bundy murdered people. Ted Bundy was not innocent while he was on trial; he was NOT CONSIDERED GUILTY, but he was not innocent. Ted Bundy was guilty both before and after he was proven guilty; the only change from before proof to after was the beliefs of those around him. Therefore, Ted Bundy was not "innocent until proven guilty".

      Similarly, the statement "false until proven to be true" is demonstrably false. There are infinitely many prime numbers. The statement "there are infinitely many prime numbers" was not false before Euclid proved it; it was NOT SAID TO BE TRUE, but it was not false. There were infinitely many prime numbers both before and after Euclid proved it; the only change from before proof to after was the beliefs of mathematicians. Therefore, the infinitude of primes was not "false until proven to be true".

    • 7 months ago

      @the_logician If you're going to cite a massive webpage, at least indicate a certain part of it. The webpage that you're citing says "If X is unproven, then it is unproven and remains unproven until reason and evidence is provided", but it doesn't say "X is false until proven true".

    • 7 months ago

      @kyrothehero

      When one asserts that there is a god, they need proof to support their claims. If they do not have proof to support their claims, then we go back to the conclusion that there is no god until there is proof.

    • 7 months ago

      @the_logician No, we don’t “go back to the conclusion that there is no god”. The correct conclusion to go back to is the conclusion “there is insufficient evidence for god’s existence.” You can’t assume “there is no god” until it’s proved false. “There is no god” is an affirmative claim that requires evidence to support it, and therefore saying “they do not have proof to support their claims” doesn’t get you to that conclusion.

    • 7 months ago

      @kyrothehero

      "The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a X does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the claim that X does not exist one would have to possess abilities that are non-existent. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities."
      http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/SocialSciences/ppecorino/PHIL_of_RELIGION_TEXT/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm

      Therefore, it's difficult to provide indisputable evidence for the lack of existence of God. Without proof that God exists, we cannot say that he exists, and therefore have to either ignore the idea of a God since there cannot be any conclusion reached since neither side has evidence. See? I understand your viewpoint. But we cannot have the sides "neutral" and "hallucinating believers." We need to have "lack of hallucinating people" and "hallucinating believers" as the two sides of the debate, as it is evidence that there is no God that there is the lack of evidence that there is God.

      The angle at which you approached the argument interests me, but at the same time not the devil's advocate intended. By your previous comments I see that you do not have proof of a God. Therefore, we cannot say there is a God, which in this scenario provides reasonable evidence that the lack of evidence for a claim insists that the claim is null. Technically, there shouldn't even be the ideology of a God as it is instantaneously nullified.

      Those who use logic to have the lack of belief in a God are atheist. By definition, the claim is there is no evidence of a God, and so the conclusion is that there is no God as it is the most logically conclusive statement in the scenario. In addition, there is the point of evidence one may use and say that all the mass murders that have taken place should have been prevented by the omnipotent God, but it wasn't, presenting evidence of no God.

    • 7 months ago

      In the last paragraph, they can be considered as "agnostic atheists." But I am not agnostic because I see clear evidence for the lack of a omnipotent supernatural being due to mass murders that would have been prevented yet if this being was existent.

    • 7 months ago

      @kyrothehero The person on trial will be treated as "innocent until proven guilty". Similarly god's existence will be treated as "false until proven true". Makes sense ?

      Regarding your conjecture point, only math has conjectures. Science doesn't have conjectures. Science always follows "innocent until proven guilty" way whereas math follows "unproven is unproven until its proven". For example, we asserted Newton's theory of gravitation to be true 100 years back. Since we got a more convincing proof from Einstein, we now assert Newton's claim is false. And we will assert Einstein's equation to be false, if we get a even more convincing proof from someone. In the case of god it's more of a problem of science than math, so we have to take the path of "true until proven otherwise".

      "Rules of logic place the burden (responsibility) of proving something on the person making the claim."

      I don't think it's true. When PRO's position is "X is true", then CON's position is essentially "X is false". It is always dichotomous. There is no third option of insufficient evidence or indeterminacy. It doesn't matter who initiated the debate (by making their claim), in order to decide who has BoP.
      Say there is debate in which PRO says "there is no god", and another debate in which PRO says "there is god". According to you, in both debates PRO has the BoP. But what is the difference between the two debates? In both debates one party claims god exist and another party claims god doesn't exist. But according to your rule both the debates are treated differently. That doesn't seem to be consistent to me.

      In this debate (https://www.qallout.com/debate/5193-humanity-would-have-to-become-greater-than-its-universe-to-know-if-we-have-a-purpose) Dan put forth the same arguments as yours. But in the comments you said like Dan misunderstood my point. My point there was exactly my point here also

      One more thing. When the title says "There is no god", PRO doesn't have to prove that god's existence is impossible (incoherent in all logically possible worlds) but it's enough to prove that god doesn't exist in actual world to a high degree of certainity

    • 7 months ago

      @mani_bharathy

      Great explanation! That’s exactly our point.

    • 7 months ago

      @kyrothehero
      After some read up on this
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

      my thought is, generally it is said that the one who claims has the BoP because the the claim most of the times challenges the status quo. It should not always be PRO who has BoP, rather BoP should always be on the side which challenges the status quo.

      1)If you take statistics that is actually saying the opposite of what you say, "The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise." In this case "There is no god" is null hypothesis not just because it is the claim, but because of the nature of null hypothesis. If someone has made a claim "There is god", that is not a null hypothesis because "null hypothesis is a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena". In this case there is no relationship between god and the universe should be the default position

      2) "In public discourse" - this part of the article is more relevant to our debates I think. And that is not so strict about BoP as you say

      3) The article says "Philosophical debate can devolve into arguing about who has the burden of proof about a particular claim. This has been described as "burden tennis" or the "onus game"." If the claimer has the BoP then why do philosophers do burden tennis?

      4) "In law" -> this part of the article discusses the "innocent until proven guilty" which we already discussed. It also says the claimer has the BoP because the claimer challenges status quo.

      And one more practical problem in your "PRO has BoP" way is CON can easily win by appealing to the uncertainity/unknowablility/unprovability in nature of universe, truth, logic, morality, existence, epistomology etc which btw I experienced with @sharkb8 in our nihilism debates

    • 7 months ago

      @mani_bharathy Anyone who makes a claim should prove that claim. If one has insufficient evidence to prove their claim, they should not make such a claim.

      When it comes to this topic, it depends on the wording.

      Statement 1. There is insufficient evidence to prove there is a God. True.

      Statement 2. There is insufficient evidence to say the concept of a creator/deity/god has been completely disproven. True.

      Statement 3. There is a God. This has not been proven, but it also has not been disproven.

      Statement 4. There is no God. This has not been proven, but it also has not been disproven.

      Conclusion. It would be logically sound to say that it is unlikely that there is a god, or to say that you do not personally believe in one, but to make the affirmative claim that there is not a God is a much higher claim, and one where the burden of proof would be on the one making that claim. It’s also an almost impossible thing to prove from a finite perspective.

    • 7 months ago

      @sharkb8 I can simply refute your first two statements(or any statement in the world) by saying, "you are a limited being, you don't even know you exist for sure, you have just five senses, you might even be living in a simulation, so you can't assert anything.

      This is the problem with the "PRO has all BoP" way

    • 7 months ago

      @mani_bharathy correct to an extent.

      We would never be able to prove there is or is not a God to absolute certainty because we are finite, but we might be able to prove things according to the highest degree of human certainty.

      One could say:
      According to the accumulation of evidence of the 5 senses and logic, there is a God. One would still admit that the senses and logic are fallible, but if one assumes their accuracy, and then could prove the existence of God, one would have done so go the greatest degree of human certainty.

      Or conversely, one could say:
      According to the accumulation of evidence of the 5 senses and logic, there is not a God. One would still admit that the senses and logic are fallible, but if one assumes their accuracy, and then could prove the non-existence of God, one would have done so go the greatest degree of human certainty.

      If one simply says, “there is a God” or “There is not a God” one has overstepped. But if one qualifies that by admitting the fallibility of the tools they use to attempt to answer that question, they could make a claim according to the highest degree of human capability.

      But to come back to formal logic, whoever makes a claim has to prove it. I wouldn’t make the claim “There is no God” because then I’d have to prove that.

    • 7 months ago

      @sharkb8

      The proof is the lack of proof of there being a God. That's the whole point.

    • 7 months ago

      In order to say that claimant holds BoP, you need to identify who is the claimant. How is the claimant(PRO) logically different from the opposer(CON)? Just because he called for the debate?

      Say, you are asking people if Universal health care is good or not. Some people say it's good and some say it's bad. If these people have to have a debate who holds BoP? How do you find the claimant?

      Let me try to put it logically.

      Premises :
      Two parties X and Y involve in a debate
      Debate topic is A
      X's position is "A is true"
      Y's position is "A is false"

      Conclusion :
      BoP has to be assigned equally to X and Y because of the symmetricity(X and Y are negating each other)

    • 7 months ago

      @the_logician That’s a terrible contention. Lack of evidence for a proposition does not equate to a proposition being false. It equates to a proposition being unproven.

      @mani_bharathy a claimant is one who makes a claim of knowledge. Saying “there is no God” is a fundamentally different statement than not saying anything, or saying “the evidence for God is inconclusive.” Saying “there is no God” is a claim of knowledge, and you would need to prove that.

    • 7 months ago

      @sharkb8

      Please answer this question with a yes, no, or not sure:
      Are flying, fire-breathing dragons real?

    • 7 months ago

      @the_logician to the greatest degree of human knowledge, relying on my senses and reason, I would say no.

      But that would not prove that there is absolute certainty dragons don’t exist, because my senses and reason are fallible.

      Furthermore, if the definition of fire breathing dragons was that they operate outside of the realm of human logic and senses, it doesn’t matter if human logic and senses fail to verify the existence of these dragons, you would need new senses to be able to prove or disprove the concept of these dragons.

    • 7 months ago

      @sharkb8

      All in all, you said that Flying, fire-breathing dragons are not real because of lack of evidence.

      Similarly, to say that I can't say God does not existence due to lack of evidence would be hypocrisy as you just gave your answer as "no" because as far as humanity goes, we know of no flying, fire-breathing dragons. (Just like we know of no God.)

    • 7 months ago

      @sharkb8

      I just want to fix my slight grammar inconsistency because it bothers me:

      All in all, you said that flying, fire-breathing dragons are not real because of lack of evidence.

      Similarly, to say that I can't say God does not exist due to lack of evidence would be hypocrisy as you just gave your answer as "no" because as far as humanity goes, we know of no flying, fire-breathing dragons (just like we know of no God).

    • 7 months ago

      @the_logician You might want to re-read the second and third paragraphs of my comment, since each of them made important contentions you haven’t addressed yet.

    • 7 months ago

      @sharkb8

      As per the second paragraph, of course we cannot say with certainty, but with no proof or evidence that proves dragons are real yet and therefore as of now, There are no dragons.

      As per the third paragraph, the same logic applies. We still say that there are no dragons because we have not acquired those senses to be able to provide proof and evidence that they are real.

    • 7 months ago

      @the_logician so as per the second paragraph, you would agree that we are not making a claim of certainty that there is no God, just a claim of a lack of knowledge.

      The third paragraph is a bit different. The definition of a God is that he exists in an sense beyond human senses and logic. Thus, for any human to say that they know he exists, or do not know he exists, is impossible. We literally do not have the physical capability to answer that question brcause all we have are our senses and logic. Any being that exists beyond human senses and logic is a being who cannot be either verified, or disproved.

    • 7 months ago

      @sharkb8

      I am not aware of this definition that God "exists in an sense beyond human senses and logic." Can you give me the source for that?

    • 6 months ago

      @the_logician To take the position "There is no God" would imply that either God exists or that God does not exist. There is no conceivable middle ground. Most Christians, more precisely prepositionals myself included, contend that when considering that God does not exist reduces one's position to a position of absurdity, so you are left with absurdity or God's existence. I think I would should try and arrange a discussion.

  • 7 months ago

    Agreed. I'd say "I think there probably is not a god." but I error on the side of not, so I'll vote agree.

    My favorite arguments against are...

    Methodological Weakness: The mechanisms by which people discover information about god or gods are highly unreliable and not likely to lead to reliable truth.

    Abductive Analysis of Religions Phenomenon: The best fit explanation for religious expression is that human beings like to invent religions.

    • 6 months ago

      The argument below is a fallacy:

      "If X is unproven, X is not said to be true.
      Anything that is not true is false.
      If X is not said to be true, it is false."

      "X is not said to be true" is not the same as "X is not true"

      The only valid argument possible in this case would be:

      If X is unproven, X is not said to be true.
      "X is not said to be true" does not prove "X is not true"
      If X is not said to be true, X could be true or false."

      • 6 months ago

        I voted "disagree" owing to the fact that the argument is a fallacy and not because of any beliefs I may hold (I don't hold beliefs - I try to keep open to any possibilities). I honesty think that trying to prove one or the other is a wasted effort. The very word "believe" implies there is no proof. There is no need to believe in a proven fact.