"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins

[brownprose]

---

#7 derives a conclusion without first proving its premises.
in short, conclusion built upon a house of cards.

Also, using the same argument, it can be used prove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Ergo, it is the Flying Spag Monster that caused them all. *slurps*

[bodie]

Ergo, it is the Flying Spag Monster that caused them all. *slurps*

Thank you. Almost forgot about that.

[diehard96]

granting, for the sake of argument, that dawkins fails to disprove the existence of god. still, that is not a proof that god exists.

the burden of proof is always on the affirmative side. if the theists don't present satisfactory evidence that god exists then the default conclusion is not to believe that there is.

[brownprose]

granting, for the sake of argument, that dawkins fails to disprove the existence of god. still, that is not a proof that god exists.

the burden of proof is always on the affirmative side. if the theists don't present satisfactory evidence that god exists then the default conclusion is not to believe that there is.

Correct...in legal parlance Onus probandi or burden of proof thus, Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat – The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies it.

[mannyamador]

Atheism claims that god does not exist true...but this is because there is no evidence that he exists.

There's a logical error right there! Even if you were able to refute every proof of the existence of God, that does not prove that God does not exist. You are committing the fallacy known as Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance).

To justify the atheist position, you must prove God does not exist. Until you do so, your position is baseless.

At best, refuting all proofs of the existence of God justifies an AGNOSTIC position. In case you don't know, agnosticism is different from atheism.

The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies it.

That is only true because we presume a person's innocence until he is proven guilty. This is a practical assumption since without it the government could jail anyone on any pretext.

But when it comes to proving propositions, this does NOT apply. There is no practical need to presume either way. Atheism is simply an affirmation of the existence of a universe that does not have God. Logically, there is no reason why the atheist position should be presumed as true until proven otherwise.

So, until atheists can prove God does not exist, the atheist position is baseless and unreasonable.

[schmuck]

There's a logical error right there! Even if you were able to refute every proof of the existence of God, that does not prove that God does not exist. You are committing the fallacy known as Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance).

To justify the atheist position, you must prove God does not exist. Until you do so, your position is baseless.

At best, refuting all proofs of the existence of God justifies an AGNOSTIC position. In case you don't know, agnosticism is different from atheism.

pataka ka man lang oi. Fallacy Argumentum ad Ignorantium can not be applied to the side that does not have the burden of proof.
The burden of proof lies on the side that has a positive claim. The side that does not carry the burden of proof has the benefit of assumption. Kung dili nimo ma prove imong positive claim, that means assumed it is false.

lalis pa kag apo og pag-umangkon sa abogado?

[mannyamador]

Your argument merely replaced one unknown... where the universe come from, and makes the leap of logic that it came from god. No evidence.

If the universe should come into existence from something, the answer is not automatically God. Science does not work that way.

That is an old objection. Hume stated it previously. He was also refuted quite easily.

The argument from contingency (that's what #7 actually is, a restatement of Thomas Aquinas's Third Way) definitely proves that there is a need for a Necessary Being, whose existence is not contingent on any other. This you have not been able to refute. The question is whether this Necessary Being can be called God.

I think it can. The common conception of God among most religions is that He is a creator, the source from which the existence of the universe depends. Well, that is exactly what a necessary Being is. The Necessary Being has the act of being (or self-contained impossibility of not being if you prefer), which the other beings as inn the universe do not have. Without this Necessary being, the universe would not exist. Well, that sounds a whole lot like God -- the Creator of the Universe -- to me!

Being the Creator is one of the most basic and common attributes of God affirmed by most religions, including Christianity. Creating the universe and keeping it in existence is something religious people are thankful for. This fact alone is enough to justify awe, wonder, and even worship of such an omnipotent Being (without such omnipotence -- the power of being -- it would not be a Necessary Being).

There are, of course, may other attributes that are said of God by different people, but the affirmation of a Creator already shakes the foundations of atheism, which scoffs at the idea that such a Being -- an omnipotent Creator -- even exists.

[brownprose]

[B] That is only true because we presume a person's innocence until he is proven guilty. This is a practical assumption since without it the government could jail anyone on any pretext.

Huh?! Burden of proof applies in all facets of human discipline not just law and jurisprudence. Since you propose that God exists, it is incumbent upon you to substantiate it with empirical evidence than engaging into circular argument.

But when it comes to proving propositions, this does NOT apply. There is no practical need to presume either way. Atheism is simply an affirmation of the existence of a universe that does not have God. Logically, there is no reason why the atheist position should be presumed as true until proven otherwise.

So, until atheists can prove God does not exist, the atheist position is baseless and unreasonable.

Atheism only affirms the existence of a universe sans a God. Period.

Logically, there is no reason why atheists need to prove "who" causes what when there is NO evidence to support it.

So until theists can prove that God exists, the theistic position is no less baseless but fanatical.

Note: I am not an atheist -- surprises me to read a mistaken concept of atheism.

[mannyamador]

The burden of proof lies on the side that has a positive claim.

Like I said, that does not hold for propositions. That only holds for legal proceedings.

Sorry, but the atheist position is not a "default". There is no reason why it should be. It is as much a "positive" claim, -- depending on how one states it -- as the theist position. The atheist position must be proven just like the theist position. To deny this is to be dogmatic and to rely on an unproven assumption.

Are you afraid you cannot prove your position?

Huh?! Burden of proof applies in all facets of human discipline not just law and jurisprudence. Since you propose that God exists, it is incumbent upon you to substantiate it with empirical evidence than engaging into circular argument.

Not true. It does not hold when making logical proofs of a position. Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Take note that I am not saying that theists do not have to prove their position. Of course they do. But even if theists fail to prove the existence of God, that does NOT prove that God doesn't exist. The atheist position must be proven as well. if both cannot be proven, then you can only justify the agnostic position (that we do not know whether God exists).

[bodie]

There's a logical error right there! Even if you were able to refute every proof of the existence of God, that does not prove that God does not exist. You are committing the fallacy known as Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance).

To justify the atheist position, you must prove God does not exist. Until you do so, your position is baseless.

And why does the hypothesis that the existence of god get a free pass? Why does it suddenly become the default choice.

At best, refuting all proofs of the existence of God justifies an AGNOSTIC position. In case you don't know, agnosticism is different from atheism.

Do you naturally assume that everyone else other than you is ignorant?

Agnosticism (Greek: α- a-, without + γνώσις gnōsis, knowledge; after Gnosticism) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual-beings, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove. It is often put forth as a middle ground between theism and atheism,[1] though it is not a religious declaration in itself, and the terms are not mutually exclusive, since agnosticism refers to knowledge, while atheism and theism refer to belief.[2]

Look it up.

But when it comes to proving propositions, this does NOT apply. There is no practical need to presume either way. Atheism is simply an affirmation of the existence of a universe that does not have God. Logically, there is no reason why the atheist position should be presumed as true until proven otherwise.

So, until atheists can prove God does not exist, the atheist position is baseless and unreasonable.

Your wrong. Read the posts above.

It should read "..and until theist can prove the existence of god, it is the theist position that is baseless and unreasonable." So no, you dont get a free pass either.

So your saying that the quality of proof in order to believe in something as fundamental to many as the existence of a supreme being that will have a profound effect on their afterlife is less than that needed for determining if one man is guilty or not?!