The Burden of Proof

Time and time again I have had conversations with people who completely misunderstand the burden of proof, so I though I might state it as clearly as I can here, once and for all.

Imagine, if you will, that there are two people in a room. At first no one is speaking to the other. No one has made a claim which they need to back up with a logical argument, or (shock/horror) even evidence. No one at this stage bears the burden of proof. Then one of them pipes up:

“This table is made of wood.”

Not a massive claim, I know, but a claim none the less. A claim which is easily verified by the other person observing the table and concluding it is indeed made from wood. There is evidence to support the gentleman’s claim and the claim is accepted. Now let’s suppose he adds:

“The wood came from Noah’s Ark.”

Now this is a hell of a claim, with many ramifications for it presupposes Noah’s existence and a global flood. Notwithstanding, should we accept his claim on face value, or request the evidence that leads inescapably to this conclusion? If no evidence or even a logical argument can be presented to support this claim, why accept it as truth?

Same goes for a God.

If you claim there is a mystical invisible entity residing outside of space and time, then please provide evidence this is actually the case. If you further claim that this entity took human form and killed himself to wash away something called “sin” with his blood – well you certainly have your work cut out for you.

Keep in mind it is NOT up to the sceptic to disprove your claims. Take, for example, this conversation:

You: “There are no diamonds in the trunk of my car”

Me: “OK”

That’s it. Why should anyone investigate the claim any further? Do it make any difference to anyone if there really are not diamond in your car? Do I have any reason to suspect otherwise? In a recent conversation the response to this question was:

“What if you were a thief and believed I did have diamonds in the truck of my car? Then you might get mad and assault me.”

What the author of this comment failed to realise is that the thief holds a belief for which there is no evidence. He is in error and acts upon his illogical and unsupported beliefs with horrible results. To anyone familiar with religions, this should sound very familiar.

So why do so many theistic arguments go along these lines?

Me: “I can see no evidence of god”

Theist: “You’re not looking had enough”

http://intensedebate.com/people/GodlessNige GodlessNige

If god really was real, we would not be having these semi circular debates.
Dermot

I'm sitting here scratching my head wondering why I get dragged into these conversations but then I think if I really care about Andrew then the least I can do is try to explain how it all works in a semi coherent fashion. :)

You talk about burden of proof yet you don't accept the proof that people like me give you. It's like the person who is told that air is partially made up of oxygen and then someone says they don't believe it is because they can't see it. They're then told that you can't see oxygen with your eyes in the air around you, you need to use other methods to prove that it's there. But then the person who denies its existence in the first place refuses to entertain the notion that you can use other methods to prove that oxygen is a part of the air we breath and categorically states that it doesn't exist because they can't see it with their eyes.

If you can't "see" God, you need other methods other than physical eyesight or your physical senses to prove that he exists. The Bible says that God is spirit (please lay off the bagging of the bible and humour me here). If he is spirit then how do we communicate with the spirit realm? How do we prove that it exists? You can't measure spirit with the physical instruments or senses that we use to observe and measure the physical world. That's like trying to use your eyes to prove that oxygen exists (it's just an analogy so let's not pull it apart – stay with me here).

The Bible says that we are body, soul and spirit. Our bodies are the physical shell that we occupy, our soul is made up of our mind, will and emotions and our spirit is the part of us that we use to communicate with the spirit realm. Each part of us communicates in a different way.

Now when I say that to communicate with God you need to believe that He is there before you can activate your spirit and communicate with him it's no different than the faith that we exert when we do a physical action or attempt to work out a complex mathematical equation. I first of all believe that I can do it and then I attempt it. Without "faith" or belief I would do nothing in the physical, mental or spiritual arenas.

So as for proof that God exists I can only give you my experience and then point you to the experience of countless millions of other people around the world today because up until now, as I have previously stated, the instruments to measure spirit aren't physical or created mechanically like a rain gauge etc, they are internal and a part of every human that walks the face of the planet whether they realise it or not. I believed that God existed and communicated with him and he communicated back to me. I've seen how having God in my life has drastically changed the person that I am for the better. I've experienced supernatural happenings that line up with my belief that God is real. I've seen answers to prayer that go far beyond the realm of coincidence. I've seen people physically affected by the presence of God and observed with my own eyes the effect that God can have on the physical world. And before people jump on and say I'm deluded or ignorant or stupid or misguided, or deluded, or brain washed or uneducated or any of the many derogative comments that atheists commonly make about people who believe in God let me just say that if you met me in person you wouldn't think any of that. It's easy to hide behind a keyboard and sling accusations at people you've never met but in the real world it's never as cut and dried as you'd like it to be. Many of my friends who are christian are highly educated people who actively grapple with their faith in God and who have come to the conclusion as I have that God is real.

Unfortunately when talking about God and whether he exists I find that for many atheists the argument isn't against the possibility that there are things in this world that we can't explain yet, but rather a history of stupid, misguided and sometimes downright ridiculous human behaviour, supposedly done in the name of religion, that cloud the fact that God could very well exist. There's a lot more I could say about this but I have to fly, other things to do. I'll see if I can get back on later and continue.

I hope I've helped bring another perspective to what is hopefully an ongoing quest for the truth – we all see as through a dark glass dimly . . .

Over to you Andrew . . .

unix

"it's never as cut and dried as you'd like it to be. Many of my friends who are christian are highly educated people who actively grapple with their faith in God and who have come to the conclusion as I have that God is real."

Yes it is! God either exists or he doesn't and appeals to authority carry no weight with me, or others.

You simply make huge assertions with nothing more to back them up than spirit voices in your head, that you "activate" through "faith" and you wonder why people think you're talking drivel.

The burden of proof lies with you, deal with it. If you have no proof then say so.

Dermot

Did you even read my reply? It's answers like yours that make me wonder why I even bother.

When I said it's never as cut and dried as you'd like I was talking about how you would like to buttonhole all christians into a narrow stereotypical form shaped by your prejudice but if you meet us in real life you soon discover that you can't.

I know God, deal with it.

unix

Yes I did read it, like I said it was drivel, a lenghty drivel but apologetic drivel none the less.

If you have any proof other than "spirit voices, activated by faith" then lets have it? Here, I'll start you off. My proof and evidence for a god is …

No, you don't know God, you only think you do, deal with it.

http://twitter.com/Cynskeptical @Cynskeptical

Ok so I am going to try and answer some of the following statements. Hopefully it will come out in some coherant way that makes sense. I will note here that I shall comment after each part.

"You talk about burden of proof yet you don't accept the proof that people like me give you. It's like the person who is told that air is partially made up of oxygen and then someone says they don't believe it is because they can't see it. They're then told that you can't see oxygen with your eyes in the air around you, you need to use other methods to prove that it's there. But then the person who denies its existence in the first place refuses to entertain the notion that you can use other methods to prove that oxygen is a part of the air we breath and categorically states that it doesn't exist because they can't see it with their eyes."

Ok for starters there is what is called a scientific method for proving the existence of oxygen molecules in the air that we breath. Much like there is also a method for detecting UV light which passes through our atmosphere from the sun. There is not however any scientific method for proving the existence of God. The reason behind this is that there is no physical(and by physical I mean right down to the atomic and sub-atmomic levels of the physical world. The very matter that we are all made up of. Oxygen much like every other chemical can in fact be tested against to prove it is there). Therefore we have in laymens terms, no way of proving the existence of god. Nor that matter, before you jump onto the claim, the non-existence of God. This is easily combined with disproving fairies, unicorns, and any other figure, creature, or even substance that you can think up, and even those that you can't think up.

"If you can't "see" God, you need other methods other than physical eyesight or your physical senses to prove that he exists. The Bible says that God is spirit (please lay off the bagging of the bible and humour me here). If he is spirit then how do we communicate with the spirit realm? How do we prove that it exists? You can't measure spirit with the physical instruments or senses that we use to observe and measure the physical world. That's like trying to use your eyes to prove that oxygen exists (it's just an analogy so let's not pull it apart – stay with me here)."

This is a really bad analogy, and again there is a scientific method for proving the existence of O2(Oxygen). And it would not matter by the way, if the bible said it or some other book said it or it was in fact a family story of a thousand generations, the existence of a spirit was merely a way for our ancestors to make sense of the conscious mind. It was perceived and invented as the reason, well before science was about to actually tell you what is going on. And no that is not to say that we fully understand the mind or have worked out all its secrets. However you can take a person and put them in an MRI machine, and you can test extensively which parts of the brain light up when in use for specific tasks as well as thoughts. These test can be repeated for individuals to show that in fact certain parts of the brain are accessed via electrical signals when certain tasks and thoughts are initiated. This does not in any way shape or form prove the existence of a spirit.

"The Bible says that we are body, soul and spirit. Our bodies are the physical shell that we occupy, our soul is made up of our mind, will and emotions and our spirit is the part of us that we use to communicate with the spirit realm. Each part of us communicates in a different way."

Firstly read above again. Secondly, if we are as you said made up of these parts, and then to semi quote from your book, that we are created in the image of god, one could conclude that we are all made the same, and therefore we cannot communicate differently with the spirit world. And this leads me to conclude that because we are all made the same, and because I have never ever had any communication with the spirit world, nor have many others(billions you might say) that the spirit world does not exist, or if it does is well and truly out of my reach or that of anyone elses.

part 1… cont'd next post….

http://twitter.com/Cynskeptical @Cynskeptical

part two…
"Now when I say that to communicate with God you need to believe that He is there before you can activate your spirit and communicate with him it's no different than the faith that we exert when we do a physical action or attempt to work out a complex mathematical equation. I first of all believe that I can do it and then I attempt it. Without "faith" or belief I would do nothing in the physical, mental or spiritual arenas."

This is somewhat of a logical fallacy. If I am reading this correctly. We do not have faith that we can kick a ball, or do a mathematical equation nor jump out of a plane, go for a walk, breath, talk, sit, stand or eat breakfast. These are activities that require the use of the brain to use the both the experiences of the past as wel as evidence from outside the brain, such as that given to us by others who have also been able to do such activities to them be able to ascertain whether or not we ourselves are then able to also successfully complete these tasks. Even when such tasks are not at the fore front of our minds, like breathing and walking or talking even, we still have to cross check hundreds and thousands of indicators in our brain daily just to survive. Luckily for us, our brains are so sophisticated that most of our daily lives and all the thoughts go by unnoticed yet successfully.

"So as for proof that God exists I can only give you my experience and then point you to the experience of countless millions of other people around the world today because up until now, as I have previously stated, the instruments to measure spirit aren't physical or created mechanically like a rain gauge etc, they are internal and a part of every human that walks the face of the planet whether they realise it or not."
Cutting this one up as I wish to answer bit, separately, but not out of context either.

Straight off you have just accepted that the experiences of proof that you claim to have and that of everyone else's, is an individual experience and not an experience that can be claimed en mass by millions all at the same time. And by the same time, I mean THE EXACT SAME TIME. Therefore these are, like your own self evident experiences, merely anecdotal in conclusion. You can't with any real measure of assurity prove to anyone outside of yourself that these things have happened or were even real.
Even if everyone on earth had some kind of sudden spiritual feeling, it would not conclude the existence of a spirit nor the existence of anything else that might be claimed via internal means. eg, voices, visions etc.

"I believed that God existed and communicated with him and he communicated back to me."
You might need to rephrase this statement to not make it sound like a case of past tense testimony.

"I've seen how having God in my life has drastically changed the person that I am for the better."
I thought you said you can't see God. If that is the case how did you see him drastically change your life?

part 3 next…

Dermot

This is somewhat of a logical fallacy. If I am reading this correctly. We do not have faith that we can kick a ball, or do a mathematical equation nor jump out of a plane, go for a walk, breath, talk, sit, stand or eat breakfast. These are activities that require the use of the brain to use the both the experiences of the past as wel as evidence from outside the brain, such as that given to us by others who have also been able to do such activities to them be able to ascertain whether or not we ourselves are then able to also successfully complete these tasks. Even when such tasks are not at the fore front of our minds, like breathing and walking or talking even, we still have to cross check hundreds and thousands of indicators in our brain daily just to survive. Luckily for us, our brains are so sophisticated that most of our daily lives and all the thoughts go by unnoticed yet successfully.

Let me make it as simple as I can. When you sit down on a chair you "believe" that the chair will hold your weight, correct? That is faith in action. You believed and then you acted.

————————————————————————-

"Straight off you have just accepted that the experiences of proof that you claim to have and that of everyone else's, is an individual experience and not an experience that can be claimed en mass by millions all at the same time. And by the same time, I mean THE EXACT SAME TIME. Therefore these are, like your own self evident experiences, merely anecdotal in conclusion. You can't with any real measure of assurity prove to anyone outside of yourself that these things have happened or were even real."

Ollie we're not talking about a rock falling out of the sky – we're talking about a relationship with a sentient being – God, who is spirit – which as I've already said, you can't see. Why is it so hard to believe? He has given us a book – the bible – that we can read and see.

Let me put it another way – You have a relationship with Andrew which is different to the relationship that his wife has with him and his children have. Just because you all have different relationships doesn't make him a figment of your imagination.

——————————————————

"I believed that God existed and communicated with him and he communicated back to me."
"You might need to rephrase this statement to not make it sound like a case of past tense testimony. "

Read it slowly, it makes perfect sense to me :)

————————————————-

"I've seen how having God in my life has drastically changed the person that I am for the better."
I thought you said you can't see God. If that is the case how did you see him drastically change your life?

I see that you like arguing – I've seen how arrogance can cloud a man's view – I'm surprised that I have to step you through what I've said, unless you're just yanking on my chain?

As for how he has drastically changed my life – I used to be self absorbed, I still am at times but I now live a far greater proportion of my life for the good of others :) Try it, you'll soon see why it's such a miracle :)

http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

" When you sit down on a chair you "believe" that the chair will hold your weight, correct? That is faith in action. You believed and then you acted."

At the moment you sit on the chair you are acting with "faith" that it will hold your weight based on numerous trial runs beforehand. In other words – evidence it will hold your weight. After you have sat on the chair you will KNOW the result.

Where are the results that demonstrate without a reasonable doubt that a deity exists?

———————————————
"… you can't see. Why is it so hard to believe?"

Because you cannot see it?

"He has given us a book – the bible – that we can read and see."

Yes, I can see books. I see lots of books. Some with incredible claims. Some claiming to be divinely inspired. What makes you think this one was written by the creator of the universe?

———————————————————————————
"Read it slowly, it makes perfect sense to me :) "

God e-x-i-s-t-e-d … hmmm. Past tense.

Dermot

"Ok for starters there is what is called a scientific method for proving the existence of oxygen molecules in the air that we breath. Much like there is also a method for detecting UV light which passes through our atmosphere from the sun. There is not however any scientific method for proving the existence of God. The reason behind this is that there is no physical(and by physical I mean right down to the atomic and sub-atmomic levels of the physical world. The very matter that we are all made up of. Oxygen much like every other chemical can in fact be tested against to prove it is there). Therefore we have in laymens terms, no way of proving the existence of god. Nor that matter, before you jump onto the claim, the non-existence of God. This is easily combined with disproving fairies, unicorns, and any other figure, creature, or even substance that you can think up, and even those that you can't think up. "

Did you read what I wrote? I used my analogy to try and illustrate a point. Maybe I should have said you'd gone back in time 400 years and were explaining oxygen to a native Australian – to them you'd appear nuts. What you are talking about as a fact they would think was a fairy tale. Funny that – I'm sure science has lagged way behind intuitive leaps of faith in the past. Just because science is lagging when it comes to measuring or proving God's existence doesn't disprove His existence. It just means that your technology isn't suitably advanced. But hey, if you want to close the door and be labelled by history as bigoted then go right ahead. I'm not that arrogant.

————————————————–

"This is a really bad analogy, and again there is a scientific method for proving the existence of O2(Oxygen). And it would not matter by the way, if the bible said it or some other book said it or it was in fact a family story of a thousand generations, the existence of a spirit was merely a way for our ancestors to make sense of the conscious mind. It was perceived and invented as the reason, well before science was about to actually tell you what is going on. And no that is not to say that we fully understand the mind or have worked out all its secrets. However you can take a person and put them in an MRI machine, and you can test extensively which parts of the brain light up when in use for specific tasks as well as thoughts. These test can be repeated for individuals to show that in fact certain parts of the brain are accessed via electrical signals when certain tasks and thoughts are initiated. This does not in any way shape or form prove the existence of a spirit."

So?? Whether you believe we have a spirit or not is irrelevant to the discussion. I was asked to prove that God exists and to do so I am explaining how we communicate with him.

—————————————————————————-

"Firstly read above again. Secondly, if we are as you said made up of these parts, and then to semi quote from your book, that we are created in the image of god, one could conclude that we are all made the same, and therefore we cannot communicate differently with the spirit world. And this leads me to conclude that because we are all made the same, and because I have never ever had any communication with the spirit world, nor have many others(billions you might say) that the spirit world does not exist, or if it does is well and truly out of my reach or that of anyone elses. "

Once again so?? Many billions of people in the world have had communication with the spirit world. Have you experienced everything that this world has to offer? Obviously not. Why do you think that just because you haven't experienced it it isn't true?

http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

" I used my analogy to try and illustrate a point"

Maybe you need a better illustration?

"Maybe I should have said you'd gone back in time 400 years and were explaining oxygen to a native Australian – to them you'd appear nuts"

Maybe – until you demonstrated it to them so they could see it first hand.

" I'm sure science has lagged way behind intuitive leaps of faith in the past"

That's a joke, right?

"Just because science is lagging when it comes to measuring or proving God's existence doesn't disprove His existence"

No, but we are not arguing god does not exist. We do not believe he exists because there is no evidence to support the idea.

"I'm not that arrogant."

You believe you're correct without any evidence whatsoever. That sounds pretty arrogant to me.

———————————————–
"Whether you believe we have a spirit or not is irrelevant to the discussion."

No – it's completely relevant. There is no evidence for "spirits" or gods.

"…so I am explaining how we communicate with him."

With this spirit thing you have not shown exists? Please.

—————————————————-
"Why do you think that just because you haven't experienced it it isn't true?"

True, but I can only conclude things I experience via my senses are being real.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Cynskeptical Cynskeptical

"Once again so?? Many billions of people in the world have had communication with the spirit world. Have you experienced everything that this world has to offer? Obviously not. Why do you think that just because you haven't experienced it it isn't true?"

Seriously, why bother debating a subject with you if all you are going to do is move the goal post continuously. What do you mean do I think that just because I have experience it it can't be true? What kind of argument is that exactly? Yet another straw man argument perhaps? Are purposely being facetious? Or just ignorant beyond comprehension?
The simple undeniable fact of the matter is that, not ONE SINGLE one of those millions of stories can be verified what so ever with any irrefutable scientific evidence and or testing. Not one story can be said to hold any such factual evidence for the existence of some magical being in the sky. They are ALL heresay and anecdotal at their very core. This does not make them evidence.
The sooner you stop being sucked in like some child being offered candy by a stranger with a nice smile, the sooner you will realise how completely wrong you are. However I doubt from what you have said so far that you will come even remotely close to opening up you brain to the idea of thinking critically and logically. But good luck to you anyway and I really do hope you wake up soon.

http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

Good morning Ollie, I see you were up late.

"Many billions of people in the world have had communication with the spirit world."

They say they have, but I have experienced "spiritual" moments at rock concerts or under the effects of some drugs. The difference with my experiences is that we can not only repeat them (as "spiritual" experiences can be repeated) by can induce them. There is a clear cause of the experience – play the right kind of music and any crowd will lose themselves.

With these divine "spiritual" experiences the effects are the same, yet they attribute it to whichever god they happen to be worshipping. You can see Hindus, Voodoo, New Age Hippies, and Christians all doing to same thing. Hold your hand in the air for extended periods, sway rhythmically, play repetitive music, and modulate the intensity and you will witness "spiritual" events. So where does god come in?

"Seriously, why bother debating a subject with you if all you are going to do is move the goal post continuously."

I think I am beginning to see the reasons. Theist beliefs (and many more) rely on many other beliefs to support them. These other beliefs are also supported by their neighbours. So they're all in a kind of web of thought. The skeptic will take each individual thought and remove as many supporting ideas as possible. If the idea remains solid, it's probably worthwhile. Perhaps this might be a good area of discussion at the next podcast?

"They are ALL heresay and anecdotal at their very core"

I expect the argument to be that millions of these stories account for something. Unfortunately 1,000,000 times 0 is still 0.

http://www.facebook.com/anwyll David Gibson

Have you seen the deconversion series from the YouTube user Evid3nc3 (http://www.youtube.com/user/Evid3nc3)?

While it is a very detailed personal account he outlines this "matrix" or web of the various support structures that link together to sure up religious faith and maintain the belief even after various elements have been removed. I found it pretty interesting and enlightening on how people believe so fervently in religion, especially in the face of strong evidence (having never been religious or theistic myself it is almost alien to me). Despite being well made the videos come across very genuine and heartfelt.
http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

Yes, I have been following his series for quite sometime. Very well put together and raises great points.

http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

“You talk about burden of proof yet you don't accept the proof that people like me give you.”

I endeavour to use exactly the same standards of evidence for every question I investigate. If I have rejected the notions people present it is usually because they have been unable to present the evidence required to form such a belief, and in many cases are unable to form coherent logical argument (that is, free from a logical fallacy).

“It's like the person who is told that air is partially made up of oxygen and then someone says they don't believe it is because they can't see it.”

We may not be able to see oxygen, but we can measure it’s presence though a variety of means. We can generate it, tinker with it, play with it, see how it behaves, make predictions of how it will act, and verify them experimentally.

Where is the equivalent in relation to god? Prayer? A feeling of “oneness”? A “spiritual” calling? How can ewe verify any of these things?

“But then the person who denies its existence in the first place refuses to entertain the notion that you can use other methods to prove that oxygen is a part of the air we breath and categorically states that it doesn't exist because they can't see it with their eyes.”

Then they would be totally irrational and illogical. Is this what you think of atheists?

“If you can't "see" God, you need other methods other than physical eyesight or your physical senses to prove that he exists.”

Name one sense that is not physical in origin.

“The Bible says that God is spirit (please lay off the bagging of the bible and humour me here).”

What IS spirit? How can I determine if one exists or not? Can I run any experiments to verify the idea?

“You can't measure spirit with the physical instruments or senses that we use to observe and measure the physical world.”

If this “spirit world” cannot be measured using physical instruments, then one might conclude it has no effect of the physical realm whatsoever. Anything that has no effect is indistinguishable from the non-existent.

“Our bodies are the physical shell that we occupy, our soul is made up of our mind,…”

The mind is a product of the very physical brain. We can alter moods with chemicals, drugs, and even food. We observe personality changes when a brain is damaged. We can observe parts of the brain “lighting up” as we think about certain concepts. All that we know points to the mind being an emergent property of the brain.

Do you have evidence of this “soul” thing? Can you explain exactly how it interacts with the brain and how we might measure it?
http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

“Now when I say that to communicate with God you need to believe that He is there before you can activate your spirit and communicate with him…”

And you know this how?

Not to offend, but it sounds like I must first delude myself before I can hear god. Sounds bizarre to me.

“…it's no different than the faith that we exert when we do a physical action or attempt to work out a complex mathematical equation.”

Actually, it’s quite different.

When I perform a physical action I can see the results immediately. So can those around me. It’s independently verifiable.

Complex mathematical problems can be solved. Those proofs (in the mathematical usage of the word) can be passed to others who can verify the calculations and reach exactly the same conclusion. If they cannot, the maths is invalid and thrown out.

“So as for proof that God exists I can only give you my experience and then point you to the experience of countless millions of other people around the world..”

Your experience is not my experience. I cannot experience your experience. I cannot test it. I cannot verify it. It has no value to me in confirming an idea.

The same goes for the millions of others who say they have had some experience. At most I can only accept that they SAY they have experienced something and wonder why god has not seen fit to furnish me with those same experiences. He does want to save me – right?

“I believed that God existed and communicated with him and he communicated back to me.”

And I believe you had some experience, but cannot say if it was a god or not.

“I've seen how having God in my life has drastically changed the person that I am for the better.”

Strange. I think I am a better person for having gven up god.

“I've experienced supernatural happenings that line up with my belief that God is real.”

Do you mean “supernatural” in the sense that it’s just not possible in the natural world, or simply coincidences?

“I've seen answers to prayer that go far beyond the realm of coincidence.”

Really? At which level of improbability do you declare the event to be a miracle and why?

“I've seen people physically affected by the presence of God….”

I have seen that too. Scary.

“… and observed with my own eyes the effect that God can have on the physical world.”

Ahh, excellent. He DOES have an effect on the physical world. So we should be able to detect it, and measure it. (unless of course he wishes to remain hidden, thus prevent billions from being saved).

“Many of my friends who are christian are highly educated people …”

Argument from authority. What did I tell you about logical fallacies?

“I find that for many atheists the argument isn't against the possibility that there are things in this world that we can't explain yet…”

There are many things we do not understand, but why do I need to fill the gaps with a deity to answer them? How is this deity an answer at all? Surely positing his existence just raises more questions, like where did he come from? Why did he create a universe at all? Why did he give us free will? Why must we all suffer because an ancestor choose evil? What’s the purpose of evil and suffering/ Is it fair to punish people for eternity for finite crimes? Why does he desire continual eternal worship? After a billion eternities of worshipping god in Heaven, what do you do then? What the purpose of being in Heaven and worshipping god? etc.

So many questions raised to answer a few simple unknowns. How did we get here? What happens after we die.
http://twitter.com/atan2 @atan2

A well-written comment. I enjoyed reading it — thanks. The glaring problem I see is this one:

"… to communicate with God you need to believe that He is there before you can activate your spirit and communicate with him …"

In other words, the ability to personally acquire any evidence supporting the existence of God is predicated on you already believing in God. By the time you have taken the first step and been convinced to have faith you have completely thrown out your capacity to objectively judge whether anything that follows is actually a sign from God or simply appears so as a result of your own initial faith. Of course you think you're talking to God — because you assumed to begin with that you are.

http://twitter.com/Cynskeptical @Cynskeptical

part 3…
"I've experienced supernatural happenings that line up with my belief that God is real."
Again, this is just more anecdotal evidence and can't be proven.

"I've seen answers to prayer that go far beyond the realm of coincidence. I've seen people physically affected by the presence of God and observed with my own eyes the effect that God can have on the physical world. And before people jump on and say I'm deluded or ignorant or stupid or misguided, or deluded, or brain washed or uneducated or any of the many derogative comments that atheists commonly make about people who believe in God let me just say that if you met me in person you wouldn't think any of that."

I have met you, and I have to say no I did not for the brief moment that I met you, automatically consider you any of the above mentioned derogatory names. However again you have stated you have observed with your own eyes god affects on the physical world, a god for which you claim you can't see with your own eyes. Again you contradict yourself. With such statements you can easily see why people might label you with such derogitory comments, can you not?

"It's easy to hide behind a keyboard and sling accusations at people you've never met but in the real world it's never as cut and dried as you'd like it to be. Many of my friends who are christian are highly educated people who actively grapple with their faith in God and who have come to the conclusion as I have that God is real."

I am not going to make the assumption that they came to any logical or evidentiary conclusion for the existence of god, for if they had they would share it(the evidence that is. not their internal conclusions). Again it would or could be concluded that they merely came to some kind of anecdotal form of evidence for the existence of god. And in their own personal way, this might very well be enough, but for the masses, and for those of us that require more than just heresay, it does not prove the existence of god.

"Unfortunately when talking about God and whether he exists I find that for many atheists the argument isn't against the possibility that there are things in this world that we can't explain yet, but rather a history of stupid, misguided and sometimes downright ridiculous human behaviour, supposedly done in the name of religion, that cloud the fact that God could very well exist. There's a lot more I could say about this but I have to fly, other things to do. I'll see if I can get back on later and continue."

This is just another straw man argument that attempts to quash the ideas of those with rational and logical minds in order make them seem less rational and logical when dealing with them. I fail to see how you can justify coming to this most narrow of conclusions about the type of people you seem to think atheist are. Yes you do not state all but instead state many, however this alone says that you show some mistrust in what they have to say. Sadly there are plenty of examples of people being both stupid and ignorant without using god as an excuse, as much as there are also plenty of people who are stupid and ignorant and do say things in the name of god as well as doing things in the name of god. Yet one thing you fail to see or at least acknowledge, is that atheist usually start off not as atheist but as skeptics, for you can't be a theist and a skeptic at the same time. And one thing we will say is that it is ok to not know, rather than to speculate and get it wrong. And please do not start the Pascal's wager line of thinking, it simply will not work. As a skeptic and a believer in the scientific method of anecdotal types of evidence, I am happy to say I do not know the answer to a particular question(one that as a species we haven't proven) and I will be happy to say as such until one day I am proven wrong in my stance.

"I hope I've helped bring another perspective to what is hopefully an ongoing quest for the truth – we all see as through a dark glass dimly . . ."

Truth in as certain as logic, and god is neither truth or logic.

That's about all I have to say on it currently. Apologies for spelling mistakes or slight gramatical errors.

Ollie :)

http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

I was going to reply to Dermot's comment in a separate post, but Ollie seems to have caught my disease – he has started to ramble madly at the keyboard.

Seriously, many of the points I was going to raised have been addressed here. While I might have explored slightly different avenues, or underlined certain concepts with examples, I no longer feel the need.

Good job Ollie.

http://twitter.com/Cynskeptical @Cynskeptical

Please sir, can I have a cookie?

http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

No, but you can bring more cookies to the next podcast :)

Dermot

"I've experienced supernatural happenings that line up with my belief that God is real."
Again, this is just more anecdotal evidence and can't be proven.

Ollie have you experienced love for a woman? (sorry I don't know you so have to ask) How do you know you were in love? What is love? How can you prove that you love someone? Anecdotally? Funny that, I don't hear of any anti-love groups starting up trying to rid the world of the misguided belief in something that can't be measured scientifically. The Bible says that God is love :)

———————————————–

"I have met you, and I have to say no I did not for the brief moment that I met you, automatically consider you any of the above mentioned derogatory names. However again you have stated you have observed with your own eyes god affects on the physical world, a god for which you claim you can't see with your own eyes. Again you contradict yourself. With such statements you can easily see why people might label you with such derogitory comments, can you not?"

When did we meet? Ollie I think I've already answered this quite well above – I can observe with my eyes the effect of love on a person's actions just as I can observe with my eyes the effects of a living God in the lives of his followers. There is no contradiction. But you've just proven to me once again why I struggle debating with atheists – you've misunderstood what I was saying either accidentally or on purpose and then you patronise me. There is never any excuse for abuse, from a christian or an atheist so let's not try an justify it.

—————————————————–

This is just another straw man argument that attempts to quash the ideas of those with rational and logical minds in order make them seem less rational and logical when dealing with them. I fail to see how you can justify coming to this most narrow of conclusions about the type of people you seem to think atheist are.

Not a straw man argument just my attempt to understand what I see all across the internet when atheists

http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

"How can you prove that you love someone?"

How do YOU know other people are in love? Oh yeah – by observing their actions. Sitting close to each other, sharing a meal, stroking each others hair, kissing, living together, having children, etc. EVIDENCE.

—————————————–
" I can observe with my eyes the effect of love on a person's actions just as I can observe with my eyes the effects of a living God in the lives of his followers."

I believe you have it backwards. Their behaviour leads you to conclude their in love, not love leads to their behaviour (which is what you witness to determine the presence of love).

Also, given that there are millions of Christians we might expect their behaviour to converge on set of observable behaviours that are different to non-Chrsitians. Given the infighting between the 33,000 + denominations, and the same basic behaviours as people of other faiths or non at all – I should say this point is not only sunk, but annihilated.

—————————————–
"Not a straw man argument just my attempt to understand what I see all across the internet when atheists"

Strictly it was a straw man, because you were using a god of the gaps argument against gnostics position.
Timothy

"Funny that, I don't hear of any anti-love groups starting up trying to rid the world of the misguided belief in something that can't be measured scientifically."

I have, and while they have a point in some areas, the main problem is that they forget, just as you have, that in any real sense of the word "evidence" or "measure"(it could be argued we could never know what love is neurologically, but on that same level, we could never know gravity was real) I can provide evidence, and measure it (hopefully being a neurologist someday, I would be in the somewhat rare position of being able to actually put my loved one in an MRI and actually test her…)

So, unless you wish to claim God is an anion, God isn't love, or isn't spiritual. Which would you prefer?

http://twitter.com/Cynskeptical @Cynskeptical

hmm I wonder, did I say too much?
http://www.godlesspaladin.wordpress.com Godless Paladin

There is a really funny picture that covers this: http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/4633/18181940c…

http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

Thanks! I have added this picture to the post.

http://www.facebook.com/anwyll David Gibson

"I endeavour to use exactly the same standards of evidence for every question I investigate."

Not sure you really mean that Andrew. Your internal threshold perhaps may be the same but a standard of proof would have to adjust depending on the nature of the claim for example: does the claim violate any current understandings of the universe or does the claim require a series of improbable events that produce an almost impossible outcome, etc.

The whole "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (sagan?) goes towards this. Surely, your burdon of proof for the life and times of Jesus Christ is higher than the life and times of Socrates, as the almost classical Hitchens talking point goes.

I personally require a far greater level of evidence for the existence of God than I do for the laughable theory of running a car on "zero-point energy" (assuming "God" is defined in an appropriately scientifically testable manner, something theists often strive to avoid but fall over themselves as Dermot did).

http://intensedebate.com/people/Cynskeptical Cynskeptical

I don't see how you can have a far greater level of evidence for the existence of god over any other claim. Evidence alone does not really have a scale you can give it. The amount of evidence however does. To me at least evidence would need to pass certain stringent tests to be then classified as evidence, but beyond that, it is just a matter of how much evidence you then have to sway the observer into agreeing with your claim. And by sway, I mean beyond a reasonable logical and rational doubt.
Sadly for theist across the board of every religion, none have yet to provide one piece of evidence. They merely have stories and heresay, and such pieces of history are not enough to convince me and many others of the existence of any of the gods they speak of.

So until Dermot and others can show me evidence in its most basic passible form, then I find it hard to believe any of his claims.

http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

Ah – yeah. That's what I was trying to say :)
http://www.facebook.com/anwyll David Gibson

"Evidence alone does not really have a scale you can give it."

Ofcourse it does, how else would you account for two conflicting bodies of evidence, you need to asses the nature of the evidence and rank one as more superior as the other if you can. Science does this constantly, for example in the form of study design where double-blind RCTs are more highly valued than non-blinded RCTs then you have the whole scale from there to cohort studies and case-control studies to case studies. Their design itself limits the generalisability and extent to which hypothesis can be accepted given conditions, etc. This is also why you said "…every religion, none have yet to provide one piece of evidence. They merely have stories and heresay…" stories and heresay is evidence of a kind, it is just really bad evidence and you have ranked it accordingly.

The very nature of the God claim is so fantastical and complex that a far greater amount of evidence is required for me to accept it. For example, if a theist could satisfy me that prayer actually works this alone doesn't necessarily suggest God exists, there could be other explanations, I need more than this, such as inerrency in the bible and the existence of angels, heaven, hell, the devil, etc. I'm not saying God requires more evidence simply because it is God, the claim requires more evidence because of the nature of the claim.

http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

I think we are violently agreeing.

"how else would you account for two conflicting bodies of evidence"

Either a single piece of evidence supports a proposition or it does not. When weighing up two competing ideas, the one with the majority of the evidence on it's size will (should) win out. So in this way a single piece of evidence does not have a scale, but collectively they do. I believe this is what Ollie and I are talking about.

"…a far greater amount of evidence is required for me to accept it."

Agreed. In fact ANY evidence supporting a deity it yet to be presented.

"…the claim requires more evidence because of the nature of the claim."

Exactly – more evidence :)

http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

"Your internal threshold perhaps may be the same but a standard of proof would have to adjust depending on the nature of the claim"

Well, each claim requires as much evidence to support it as required. Yes – questions such as "does it violate existing knowledge" are important, and this goes directly to Sagan's axiom.

Did Socrates exist? It largely depends on how you define him. If (and this is what you are alluding to) he is the gentleman responsible for the Socratic method, then yes he existed. Jesus has a number of claims associated with the character and each need to be evaluated for their merit.

I would not say I demand more evidence for the existence of god over, say, "zero-point energy" cars, but the amount of evidence is certainly greater. That is – the standard of evidence remains the same, but the claims are not.

http://twitter.com/Cynskeptical @Cynskeptical

The way I see it, and I should clarify a bit more on my stance, is that evidence in a case of some kind of claim, has to be proven to be evidence first before it is allowed on the table to then be added to the list of items that can prove a claim.
Take for example a murder case in which there is blood splatter on a door handle near where the victim died. You have to first test the blood against that of the victim and then if it matches, it is added to the case as evidence, if it does not match, then it is tested against possible suspects. If it matches any suspects then it is taken as evidence in the case. If it happen to not match the victim or any suspects and can't be identified then it is not used as evidence in the case. It can't be as it is inconclusive evidence. So it has to go from being possible evidence, to being proven to be evidence to then be added as evidence. It can't be evidence before it can proven as evidence.
http://twitter.com/Cynskeptical @Cynskeptical

Evidence for the existence of God in any form has yet to be shown. All the evidence you have or can show is not evidence, it is just the word of individuals proclaiming to have had their own personal and subjective experiences. These in no way can be considered evidence.
As for the existence of Socrates. I do not consider this a valid analogy for the existence of God. For starters whether or not Socrates existed or not does not matter. For all we know it was a made up name of some guy who had some good ideas about the world. It does not matter. The reason it does not matter is that unlike God, Socrates isn't after our eternal souls and does not threaten us with the fires of hell. He makes no amazing supernatural claim that needs a massive leap of faith to believe.

God on the other hand, if he exists, puts on us extreme levels of guilt and anxiety(at least for the believers) and also fear.

http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

This is why I spoke to the existence of Socrates – it comes down to how you define him If you define Socrates as the person who came up with the Socratic method (a bit of circularity I know), then fine – there once was a person who devised the method and we call him Socrates. I can easily believe that.

I agree with you, Ollie. God has all sort of claims made about him, built upon even more presupposed claims. The existence of souls, Heaven Hell, judgement, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, etc. These are all claims which require evidence to support them and it is not our job to prove them wrong, but to hold the evidence up to scrutiny to see if it's valid.

So far? Zip.

http://www.facebook.com/anwyll David Gibson

I think we are agreeing violently as you put it Andrew.

I think my two key points are that it is the claim that dictates the amount of evidence required to convince me it is plausible and that evidence doesn't necessarily have a direction without other evidence and a criteria to apply it towards. For Cynskeptical's analogy of the blood on the door handle, this is evidence, material, biological evidence, the question is whether it is significant to the crime or perhaps evidence for an unrelated event. Evidence is what it is, we are required to provide it with a velocity (direction and speed) in order for it be evidence for something.

The analogy with Socrates is useful because it is relatively simple and ultimately it doesn't matter if Socrates existed, the method is examinable in itself, we don't need him. The claims about God are so complex and fantastical that I simply require a far greater array of evidence that can withstand critical scrutiny. I feel it is dishonest to say I don't need more evidence for the existence of God than I would for some other historical figure. I'd almost go as far to say that, the claim of God is so massive that I would require more evidence for his existence than anything imaginable (except perhaps God's God, lol).

Whenever I've told a theist this they cry foul and I guess the reason I started this discussion was to see if you guys agree with my stance.

http://intensedebate.com/people/askegg askegg

..and we do.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Cynskeptical Cynskeptical

I think we more or less do agree here.

My blood analogy might not have been the best, but to back it up a bit more. Everything around a crime scene could be used as evidence, but it isn't. In fact everyone on the entire planet could be used as evidence for a crime, but it is not. The distinguishable thing between such evidence and that of evidence that claims to support the existance of god, is that at evidence for god is not tangible. You can't touch it, see it, feel it, hear it, talk to it, interact with it. Evidence for a murder case or for that matter that Socrates was around, is tangible and can be interactive.
Now straight away I can hear someone saying "but hey what about the bible, you can touch that, pick it up and read it and smell it, there you go you have some tangible evidence". However again unlike God, Socrates isn't trying to steal our souls or threaten us with a fire a brimstone eternity of hell.

Reading back however, I think we are getting into symantics with each other. We agree easily that there is no evidence for the existence of god and what evidence there claims to be doesn't stand up to any real scrutiny.

http://www.facebook.com/NRParsons Nathan Parsons

And equally, you could pick up the Lord of the Rings trilogy and touch it, read it and smell it. Nobody would claim that that is evidence for the existence of Middle Earth, or Hobbits, so making such claims about the Bible is equally unqualified. But I bet that someone would make such claims about the Bible.

http://www.facebook.com/anwyll David Gibson

I'm waiting for the mystery cult of Tom Bombadil :P
http://www.facebook.com/NRParsons Nathan Parsons

I'm wondering if a Harry Potter cult will appear sometime; I mean there are 7 large books of those, and 6 films. I think there may actually be more evidence for the existence of Harry Potter than for God.
http://www.facebook.com/anwyll David Gibson

All we need now is for JK Rowling to explain the Harry Potter books were actually revelatory and delivered by the great wizard in the sky who watches over all the muggles, one day Potter will return to defeat "you know who" in a final battle that will reveal the true nature of our world and the magic that lies within all of us.

Praise be to Potter!

Dermot

Life after death – what would convince you that it's real? Maybe someone coming back from the dead?

askegg

Well, no. It only shows people can come back from the dead. It does not show "they" go somewhere else while they are dead.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Cynskeptical Cynskeptical

Who do you have in mind? Someone you know? Someone who was dead longer than a few minutes on an operating table? Perhaps someone who was frozen and was revived back to life years later? Chances are you do not know anyone and if you do it is most likely one of the former examples above. In which case they are hardly classify as quality candidates.

But hey, go for it, what you got?

Subscribe to the Podcast

44 – An Atheist Temple

BBC News – Row over Indonesia atheist Facebook post Priority is to protect marriage | Herald Sun No Fetus Can Feed Us | Unreasonable Faith Alain de Botton: Atheism 2.0 | Video on TED.com

Standard Podcast [ 1:44:50 ] Play Now | Download

The Burden of Proof

44 – An Atheist Temple

Further Reading

ACL lie about census

Dog Heads

Atheists n Agnostics speak out in Arabic

The perfect God

Atheism 2.0

The Bizarre Bible