The "Lack of Belief" Word Game

[Oats]

1. The Argument from Change

The material world we know is a world of change. This young woman came to be 5'2", but she was not always that height. The great oak tree before us grew from the tiniest acorn. Now when something comes to be in a certain state, such as mature size, that state cannot bring itself into being. For until it comes to be, it does not exist, and if it does not yet exist, it cannot cause anything.
As for the thing that changes, although it can be what it will become, it is not yet what it will become. It actually exists right now in this state (an acorn); it will actually exist in that state (large oak tree). But it is not actually in that state now. It only has the potentiality for that state.
Now a question: To explain the change, can we consider the changing thing alone, or must other things also be involved? Obviously, other things must be involved. Nothing can give itself what it does not have, and the changing thing cannot have now, already, what it will come to have then. The result of change cannot actually exist before the change. The changing thing begins with only the potential to change, but it needs to be acted on by other things outside if that potential is to be made actual. Otherwise it cannot change.
Nothing changes itself. Apparently self-moving things, like animal bodies, are moved by desire or will—something other than mere molecules. And when the animal or human dies, the molecules remain, but the body no longer moves because the desire or will is no longer present to move it.
Now a further question: Are the other things outside the changing thing also changing? Are its movers also moving? If so, all of them stand in need right now of being acted on by other things, or else they cannot change. No matter how many things there are in the series, each one needs something outside itself to actualize its potentiality for change.
The universe is the sum total of all these moving things, however many there are. The whole universe is in the process of change. But we have already seen that change in any being requires an outside force to actualize it. Therefore, there is some force outside (in addition to) the universe, some real being transcendent to the universe. This is one of the things meant by "God."
Briefly, if there is nothing outside the material universe, then there is nothing that can cause the universe to change. But it does change. Therefore there must be something in addition to the material universe. But the universe is the sum total of all matter, space and time. These three things depend on each other. Therefore this being outside the universe is outside matter, space and time. It is not a changing thing; it is the unchanging Source of change.

can someone address this?

 

[jasoncran]

oats what does the law of thermodynamics have to do with this thread?

and for the ignorant, aka the law of entropy.

that really isnt proof of god.

though one cant point to the lord with that but one doesnt argue that way effectively

trust me.

it takes faith to believe that the holes in the big bang theory or the string theory point to the lord aka god of the gaps

i no longer use that one personally as one could say, though not falfsifable that an alien created this universe.

silly yes, but possible if we use god for that stuff.

do i believe that god did this yes.
but we cant "prove" god so easily.

i wish we could.

 

[Oats]

oats what does the law of thermodynamics have to do with this thread?

and for the ignorant, aka the law of entropy.

that really isnt proof of god.

though one cant point to the lord with that but one doesnt argue that way effectively

trust me.

it takes faith to believe that the holes in the big bang theory or the string theory point to the lord aka god of the gaps

i no longer use that one personally as one could say, though not falfsifable that an alien created this universe.

silly yes, but possible if we use god for that stuff.

do i believe that god did this yes.
but we cant "prove" god so easily.

i wish we could.

Matter can not be destroyed nor created,

so nothing physical could have caused the big bang


and i have asked you before with all due respect to type more clearly, I'd rather nip the confusion in the bud

also don't be so hostile.

 

[jasoncran]

Matter can not be destroyed nor created,

so nothing physical could have caused the big bang


and i have asked you before with all due respect to type more clearly, I'd rather nip the confusion in the bud

also don't be so hostile.

yes that present a big problem for the athiests.

thus still to be honest neither does it really prove its our god.

could it be that horus did it. since we cant deny or prove either that is a matter of faith thus my statement

we believe it points to God because already believe in god's word. How does the faith come by? by hearing of the word and the word by the preacher.faith doesnt come by another means. This doesnt mean we shouldnt use apologetics nor logic just that its limited.

the word must be used and that seed planted.

 

[Pebbles]

Matter can not be destroyed nor created,

so nothing physical could have caused the big bang


and i have asked you before with all due respect to type more clearly, I'd rather nip the confusion in the bud

also don't be so hostile.

Oats the rules of physics whitch state the Energy Matter conservation only apply within our universe. When you get before the exsistence of time in our universe the rules we deduce from observing OUR OWN universe don't apply. Hence why physicists get all fuzzy and philosophical at that point and make hundreds of explainations.

And ofc some religious folks like yourself stuff a god in there whitch dosen't explain how HE came about kinda defeating the point of the explaination. Why don't you apply your own reasoning to your own deity?

I'm not sure what to think about the start of the universe unless more information comes about I'm not willing to make a judgement.

 

[Oats]

Oats the rules of physics whitch state the Energy Matter conservation only apply within our universe. When you get before the exsistence of time in our universe the rules we deduce from observing OUR OWN universe don't apply. Hence why physicists get all fuzzy and philosophical at that point and make hundreds of explainations.

And ofc some religious folks like yourself stuff a god in there whitch dosen't explain how HE came about kinda defeating the point of the explaination. Why don't you apply your own reasoning to your own deity?

I'm not sure what to think about the start of the universe unless more information comes about I'm not willing to make a judgement.

We, however, don't have any knowledge of what has happened before the Big Bang, as far as Science goes....

If that something was completely random than we are extremely lucky.

So lucky that it is a miracle. So much order has come from such chaos, and I know that it is slowly going back to chaos as they say.

But your view is no more valid than mine.

And I actually have measurable arguments and clearly yours aren't


-----

Can you address my post?

this one too

2. The Argument from Efficient Causality

We notice that some things cause other things to be (to begin to be, to continue to be, or both). For example, a man playing the piano is causing the music that we hear. If he stops, so does the music.
Now ask yourself: Are all things caused to exist by other things right now? Suppose they are. That is, suppose there is no Uncaused Being, no God. Then nothing could exist right now. For remember, on the no-God hypothesis, all things need a present cause outside of themselves in order to exist. So right now, all things, including all those things which are causing things to be, need a cause. They can give being only so long as they are given being. Everything that exists, therefore, on this hypothesis, stands in need of being caused to exist.
But caused by what? Beyond everything that is, there can only be nothing. But that is absurd: all of reality dependent—but dependent on nothing! The hypothesis that all being is caused, that there is no Uncaused Being, is absurd. So there must be something uncaused, something on which all things that need an efficient cause of being are dependent.
Existence is like a gift given from cause to effect. If there is no one who has the gift, the gift cannot be passed down the chain of receivers, however long or short the chain may be. If everyone has to borrow a certain book, but no one actually has it, then no one will ever get it. If there is no God who has existence by his own eternal nature, then the gift of existence cannot be passed down the chain of creatures and we can never get it. But we do get it; we exist. Therefore there must exist a God: an Uncaused Being who does not have to receive existence like us—and like every other link in the chain of receivers.
Question 1: Why do we need an uncaused cause? Why could there not simply be an endless series of things mutually keeping each other in being?
Reply: This is an attractive hypothesis. Think of a single drunk. He could probably not stand up alone. But a group of drunks, all of them mutually supporting each other, might stand. They might even make their way along the street. But notice: Given so many drunks, and given the steady ground beneath them, we can understand how their stumblings might cancel each other out, and how the group of them could remain (relatively) upright. We could not understand their remaining upright if the ground did not support them—if, for example, they were all suspended several feet above it. And of course, if there were no actual drunks, there would be nothing to understand.
This brings us to our argument. Things have got to exist in order to be mutually dependent; they cannot depend upon each other for their entire being, for then they would have to be, simultaneously, cause and effect of each other. A causes B, B causes C, and C causes A. That is absurd. The argument is trying to show why a world of caused causes can be given—or can be there—at all. And it simply points out: If this thing can exist only because something else is giving it existence, then there must exist something whose being is not a gift. Otherwise everything would need at the same time to be given being, but nothing (in addition to "everything") could exist to give it. And that means nothing would actually be.
Question 2: Why not have an endless series of caused causes stretching backward into the past? Then everything would be made actual and would actually be—even though their causes might no longer exist.
Reply: First, if the kalam argument (argument 6) is right, there could not exist an endless series of causes stretching backward into the past. But suppose that such a series could exist. The argument is not concerned about the past, and would work whether the past is finite or infinite. It is concerned with what exists right now.
Even as you read this, you are dependent on other things; you could not, right now, exist without them. Suppose there are seven such things. If these seven things did not exist, neither would you. Now suppose that all seven of them depend for their existence right now on still other things. Without these, the seven you now depend on would not exist—and neither would you. Imagine that the entire universe consists of you and the seven sustaining you. If there is nothing besides that universe of changing, dependent things, then the universe—and you as part of it—could not be. For everything that is would right now need to be given being but there would be nothing capable of giving it. And yet you are and it is. So there must in that case exist something besides the universe of dependent things—something not dependent as they are.
And if it must exist in that case, it must exist in this one. In our world there are surely more than seven things that need, right now, to be given being. But that need is not diminished by there being more than seven. As we imagine more and more of them—even an infinite number, if that were possible—we are simply expanding the set of beings that stand in need. And this need—for being, for existence—cannot be met from within the imagined set. But obviously it has been met, since contingent beings exist. Therefore there is a source of being on which our material universe right now depends.

 

[Jakeness]

Our disagreement rests on the relationship between a claim and the burden of proof. I consider the distinction between positive and negative claims to be a red herring. Claims are statements made which must be either true or false. Both "there is a god" and "there is no god" are either true or false. What is the relationship between claims and the burden of proof?

Within a discussion, humans generally follow and expect other participants to follow the cooperative principle and divided into the four Gricean Maxims. If an atheist engages in a discussion about "does a god exist" and claims "there is no god," then according to the Maxim of Quality it should be assumed the atheist is making a claim for which they know or have good reason to believe as true. It is then reasonable of the other participants to request the reasons. If the atheist refuses to provide such reasons, then the atheist is flouting the Maxim of Relation and the Maxim of Quality. As such, the atheist is violating the cooperative principle.

As seen from the quote below, we cannot disprove god's existence. I ask sincerely, how then can the burden of proof rest on us? See The Dragon In My Garage, which is an excellent analogy for this situation.

What we can do, however, is give reasons for why there is no reason to think that there is. Well, here are the two major reasons for myself, and I would assume many other agnostic atheists:
1) Complete lack of evidence.
2) While we do not know everything about the universe, the idea of a deity is inconsistent with what we do. (And thus, is usually used to fill in the "gaps.")

I agree a general conception of god is near impossible, if not impossible, to disprove.

To be honest, I would oppose such a ban. I am not a moderator or administrator though. However, it's unlikely I would be impressed or convinced by such arguments unless they surpassed those of Parsons, Martin, or Oppy.

Thank you.
Exactly which arguments did you find unconvincing? If you want to continue this discussion through PMs to avoid our posts being removed, or not, I'd be fine either way.

Matter can not be destroyed nor created,

so nothing physical could have caused the big bang

Big bang theory doesn't state that all matter simply poofed into existence. Wouldn't you say it is God who violates this law several times at the beginning of Genesis??

 

[Deavonreye]

+1 to Jakeness's post.

 

[makinbacon]

Can you give a summary of what Parsons, Martin, or Oppy states?

To my knowledge, none of the persons mentioned have addressed the "lack of belief" word game issue.

 

[makinbacon]

As seen from the quote below, we cannot disprove god's existence. I ask sincerely, how then can the burden of proof rest on us?

You have not properly understood the quote. You have not properly understood the framework of my original post.

See The Dragon In My Garage, which is an excellent analogy for this situation.

The analogy is not relevant because you have misunderstood the argument being made.

[hint]
My response above is a living object lesson. The lesson will be clear when you properly understand my original post.
[/hint]

What we can do, however, is give reasons for why there is no reason to think that there is. Well, here are the two major reasons for myself, and I would assume many other agnostic atheists:
1) Complete lack of evidence.
2) While we do not know everything about the universe, the idea of a deity is inconsistent with what we do. (And thus, is usually used to fill in the "gaps.")

Yes, I am already familiar with these.

Exactly which arguments did you find unconvincing?

There are many. However, because I assume you're looking for specific examples here are three.

• Parsons' treatment of theodicy in "God and the Burden of Proof"
• Oppy's treatment of the Kalam cosmological arguments in "Arguing About Gods"
• Martin's treatment of Swinburne's teleological argument in "Atheism: A Philosophical Justification"

If you want to continue this discussion through PMs to avoid our posts being removed, or not, I'd be fine either way.

If Parsons, Martin, and Oppy have failed to convince me, are you confident that you would be able to do so? To be clear, they were simply the first three who came to mind. That said, I will not respond to anymore comments on this particular topic within the thread. It is off topic.

 

[makinbacon]

Can you address my post?

I like Barbies.

 

[Deavonreye]

The "word games" objection arises when atheists use the labels atheist and atheism to describe their "perspective." When others press the atheists to present and support their perspective on the issue, the atheists pound the table and declare "we only lack belief." They hide from a burden of proof through using the labels. Thus, they flout the maxim of manner and possibly the maxim of quality. By flouting these maxims, atheists are guilty of playing word games.

"We only lack beleif" is not what is actually being said. The quality of the evidence provided by the person making the claim [that god is real] is uncompelling.

Though I'm not an atheist [rather agnostic], I share some of the same thoughts on this topic.

 

[makinbacon]

"We only lack beleif" is not what is actually being said. The quality of the evidence provided by the person making the claim [that god is real] is uncompelling.

My experience finds an abundance of atheists who play the "lack of belief" card as a "get of a burden of proof jail" free card. Thus, they fall right in line with my argument.

My argument is well played. My awareness of peripheral issues and nuance should be evidence of that. Atheists have raised objections about proving negatives, the etymology of atheism, positive and negative claims, the difficulty of disproving gods, and so on. These objections have been answered before and are familiar territory for me. The biggest sticking point which seems to create an impasse is getting others to actually understand framework. If one understands the framework everything else falls into place. Sadly, most people are unwilling to put in the effort of actually understanding the framework. It takes work because it requires a person to think differently. Thus, my argument is not often successful.

 

[Deavonreye]

My experience finds an abundance of atheists who play the "lack of belief" card as a "get of a burden of proof jail" free card. Thus, they fall right in line with my argument.

My argument is well played. My awareness of peripheral issues and nuance should be evidence of that. Atheists have raised objections about proving negatives, the etymology of atheism, positive and negative claims, the difficulty of disproving gods, and so on. These objections have been answered before and are familiar territory for me. The biggest sticking point which seems to create an impasse is getting others to actually understand framework. If one understands the framework everything else falls into place. Sadly, most people are unwilling to put in the effort of actually understanding the framework. It takes work because it requires a person to think differently. Thus, my argument is not often successful.

Have you gone onto an "atheist forum board" to pose your question, and if so, can you PM me the link so I can see what you're refering to? I'm interested in seeing how you befuddled these atheists.

 

[makinbacon]

Have you gone onto an "atheist forum board" to pose your question, and if so, can you PM me the link so I can see what you're refering to?

Yes, I have. No, I will not.

 

[Deavonreye]

Yes, I have. No, I will not.

Why? Or are you unwilling to give me a visual of your point? If your position is so infallible, show your work!

 

[makinbacon]

Why?

Privacy.

Or are you unwilling to give me a visual of your point? If your position is so infallible, show your work!

There is no need. My perspective can be understood and critiqued based upon what is presented in the original post. Allow me to make another attempt.

What is my definition of "burden of proof?" Do I claim a burden of proof is always the same? What is my definition of "discussion?" What do I claim generally governs discussions?

If you return to my original post, the answers to these questions are readily available and serve as the framework for my argument.

 

[Nathan Kendall]

I don't see anybody addressing this, but here goes:

Let's look at this another way. Do you believe that "Bigfoot" exists? How about faeries? Why or why not?

I'd be careful with that when talking to a deep-rooted athiest. This logic only confirms their belief. You're now comparing God to a myth. A tooth fairy. Now you're making God seem like an invisible imaginary friend. He's much bigger and better than that.

You should do the exact opposite. Granted they can't see him, but that doesn't mean he's not there, like oxygen. I think your best bet is using the history book at them. Abraham did exist and is the father of many nations. Israel has much historical and archaeological evidence that supports the bible. I think last I heard is that someone may have stumbled upon the remains of Noah's Ark. Mention stuff like that. You can't use a blind faith tactic on someone who is looking with their eyes. ;)
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[Deavonreye]

I'd be careful with that when talking to a deep-rooted athiest. This logic only confirms their belief. You're now comparing God to a myth. A tooth fairy. Now you're making God seem like an invisible imaginary friend. He's much bigger and better than that.

You should do the exact opposite. Granted they can't see him, but that doesn't mean he's not there, like oxygen. I think your best bet is using the history book at them. Abraham did exist and is the father of many nations. Israel has much historical and archaeological evidence that supports the bible. I think last I heard is that someone may have stumbled upon the remains of Noah's Ark. Mention stuff like that. You can't use a blind faith tactic on someone who is looking with their eyes.

I'm agnostic. However, I understand the arguments made by atheists. And yes, even IF some aspects of actual history is used in a story, that doesn't mean that the story automatically becomes true [ie. Abraham being a real literal person]. Much of the bible reads exactly LIKE a myth or fairytale, but that wasn't the point of my quote.

There are many people who firmly believe in, and have had direct contact with Faeries. Do you believe them? Why or why not?

When I was a christian, I never had an actual conversation with the god, . . . but just a stark silence. So, for me, it wasn't even like an "imaginary friend", but I can see why some make that claim about many religions. For me, nothing of a god is out there. And it ISN'T like "not seeing oxygen". Oxygen can be tested for, and a person has a direct experience with oxygen.

 

[Deavonreye]

There is no need. My perspective can be understood and critiqued based upon what is presented in the original post. Allow me to make another attempt.

What is my definition of "burden of proof?" Do I claim a burden of proof is always the same? What is my definition of "discussion?" What do I claim generally governs discussions?

If you return to my original post, the answers to these questions are readily available and serve as the framework for my argument.

Again, not being an atheist, I can't truly comment on their reasons for entering into a "does god exist" thread.

I can only speak for myself. I do not know if a god or gods exist. I haven't had any compelling evidence to deem it [gods existing] true. I have no problems with them existing.