This funny - I keep saying that these people turn to science in examinations of the existence of their god (stuff), so whatever phrase they, or you, choose, the exercise is as I have summarised in my previous post in brackets.
Also if they turn to philosophy, they indulge in more futility - all you need is Kant’s rendering of the subject.
So what is this failed hypothesis, if it s not scientific or philosophical? My take, a lot of hot air trying to sound scientific.
And what is your point?
My point is that God is not amenable to scientific investigation.
That is widely accepted and understood - THUS the existence of God is NOT a failed hypothesis.
@beaglelady, Right. I didn’t get what he was trying to say either !
That sentence makes absolutely no sense to me. I am able to acquire knowledge at all sorts of times… and one of those times is when someone is proving something to me.
It seems to me that @marvin is rightly suggesting that beliefs are not based on proof, but somewhat less convincing evidence. If something is proven, it is knowledge by definition, and it is meaningless to talk about beliefs based on proof.
thanks.I did wonder if it is problem of extensive car park duty at the end of the universe 
To believe is a compound verb e.g. to “think and not know” a=true as it implies the absence of knowledge. Thus the statement to not believe A=true is equivalent to the statement believe A= not equivalent to multiplying both sides with -1. The only way not to believe if to know e.g. to not think and not not know, e.g. to know the truth status of A. The denial of belief is an argument from ignorance as to not think and not know A=true as faced with a proposition of a truth statement you can either decide to not believe it, e.g. to believe it to be not true or to ignore you, e.g. the position of ignorance taken by the new atheists.
To demand from a believer the burden of proof for his beliefs is intellectually dishonest as you know by the claim of a belief that he cannot have proof as otherwise he would know the truth status of A,. When it comes to science you can only ask for evidence for your belief, in the knowledge that,due to the finite
numbers of experiments or observations, you can only approximate the correct answer. Thus the only proof you can obtain in science is to show something to be wrong. It is Popper and the principle of falsifiability.
So from my example I hoped it made it clear that the presentation of the evidence of the dead body of A there is no more room for a belief over his viability as his death is now proven, a fact, thus known. If after finding his dead body you still believe that he is dead, than you must be unable to gain knowledge from a fact. Thus those who require proof to form a belief must be idiots.
I didn’t watch the video, so I’m not quite sure what started this, but there seems to be an equivocation problem with the wording here. When people talk about the “burden of proof” in a philosophical sense, “proof” is not meant literally. From wiki:
“When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.”
It’s just shorthand, so to speak.
If we are talking about the “God Hypothesis” then those who claim God exists would have the burden of proof.
That can lead down a twisted path of metaphysics where some may argue that the actions of God would be indistinguishable from natural processes, or something like that. If those arguing for a specific description of God also agree that there would be measurable and testable scientific evidence that would be distinguishable from natural processes then you could proceed with a scientific test for their description of God.
That would be what we call “begging the question” where you assume the very thing we are questioning. For example, if lightning exists then Thor exists because Thor is the source of all lightning. I am sure you wouldn’t accept this as a valid argument.
These are semantic issues that would need to be ironed out. For example, by “proof” do we mean absolute proof or proof beyond a reasonable doubt? For the topic at hand, I would think that we are discussing proof beyond a reasonable doubt, what you seem to call evidence for a justified belief.
An argument from ignorance follows this pattern:
No one has proven A false.
Therefore, A is true.
That is very different from not accepting something as true when there is a lack of positive evidence to support it. The concept of “innocent until proven guilty” works in much the same manner. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone is guilty. Defendants are not assumed to be guilty until they prove themselves innocent. In much the same way, it is up to the person making the positive claim to produce the positive evidence for that claim.[quote=“marvin, post:86, topic:37310”]
To demand from a believer the burden of proof for his beliefs is intellectually dishonest as you know by the claim of a belief that he cannot have proof as otherwise he would know the truth status of A,. When it comes to science you can only ask for evidence for your belief, in the knowledge that,due to the finite
numbers of experiments or observations, you can only approximate the correct answer. Thus the only proof you can obtain in science is to show something to be wrong. It is Popper and the principle of falsifiability.
[/quote]
In this context, what is being asked for is evidence that would prove something to be true beyond a reasonable doubt, but not beyond any doubt. It is the same way our court systems work, and how science works.
These last several postings are exactly why i quit taking Philosophy Courses.
It’s like modern art. There was once a time when Art was becoming increasingly exciting and realistic … and then color photography was invented.
And all of a sudden, millions of budding artists decided they needed to try their hand at representing non-reality. And the dead body was found right there … with a circling “eagle” above, showing the world its location.
Since there are many standards of Evidence, a “proof” that meets a pre-stated standard of evidence does not preclude the possibility that the proof is still in error.
Examples?
a. Audit Samples - These are statistical short-cuts used by auditors to roughly approximate the nature of the population being sampled.
b. Preponderance of Evidence - This is a courtroom benchmark which requires merely to have more evidence than the opposing argument, with additional options including which side does “a tie” favor, or to adjust the consequences in the event of a tie.
c. Beyond a Reasonable Doubt - This is the usual standard for capital trials where the accused could be executed if found guiltty.
d. The Reasonable Man Standard - where evidence doesn’t have to be “beyond a reasonable doubt”, but what most “reasonable people” would accept as sufficient evidence.
e. Circumstantial Evidence - the standard where nobody has actually witnessed who the perpetrator was, but the circumstances of the evidence are such that only one person could have committed the crime (etc). While most trial lawyers believe Circumstantial Evidence is actually better than Eye-Witness evidence, some critics consider Circumstantial Evidence (or some uses of it) to be no more than a variant of the “Reasonable Man Standard”.
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^
The distinctions made (or not made) in the posts above make the assumption that if something “is proved”, there is no possibility of being in error. This seems likely only when we are discussing “a priori” proofs.
I can have a “proof” and still “believe”. And think how many people are offered valid “proofs” and still do not believe !!!
oh, and @T_aquaticus, when it comes to beliefs, a Believer only comes under obligation to provide adequate evidence if he proposes that you should agree with his belief.
I fully agree. The opening post was talking about testing for the existence of God, so my responses are limited to that context. I am also trying to define what the boundaries are for the discussion without really getting into the nitty-gritty of what the evidence actually is, or whether specific claims are supported. This is why I am trying to use labels like “scientific” to prevent any confusion, which may be a fool’s errand. 
As shown by previous threads, these discussions often come down to what one considers evidence. We have already pounded those ideas into smithereens in those other threads, so I won’t go into any detail here. My only comment or suggestion would be this: think about what you consider evidence and then try to apply those same criteria and rules to religious claims from religions you don’t believe in. This may help some people to better understand the atheist position.
the argument from ignorance is to ignore the evidence. If you are a scientist you know that we accept a theory based on the absence of falsification of the existing theory, but know that our theory can always be falsified if data become available that our theory cannot explain or a theory becomes available that offers a better explanation. This is why science started with a flat earth view eventually realising that it was round or newtonian mechanics eventually overcome by quantum mechanics. Thus any theory was acceptable until it was found incomplete of wrong and a better explanation was put forward. That is not the form of an argument from ignorance but normal scientific progress that we accept a theory when lining up with observed reality until proven wrong and a better theory is postulated.
Now when it comes to challenging a status quo, e.g. the generally accepted theory that we generally observe that lifeforms are preceded by other lifeforms and that creation requires agency the burden of proof lies with the person questioning the accepted theory to show it to be wrong. Thus if someone thinks life can come about without an agency from matter be my guest and provide evidence for it. To talk about positive and negative claims is irrelevant to the burden of proof as the point is that if you make any proposition, negative or positive it is intellectually dishonest to say that the burden of prove arises from a positive claim. The burden of proof lies with the party that accuses the other of being in the wrong or as Dawkins does to claim those believing in God are deluded as that is a very strong claim he fails to provide evidence for as it could as well be those not believing in God that are deluded but if he claims that the belief in God is a delusion he would have the burden of proof to show that there is no God.
So if God is to be treated as a hypothesis I have not seen any evidence suggesting it to have failed, apart from those who mix up God with Santa and think him to be a magic Genie that fulfills our wishes upon prayer. But those people have a magic genie hypothesis, not a God hypothesis as a magic genie is not coherent with observed reality.
if the proof was invalid it was by definition not a proof and you may accept something to be proof that is not and thus think you know, quite a common error, as well as being right about something without knowing it. But it does not negate the point that a belief can only be converted into knowledge by obtaining proof and that proof does remove from you the freedom to belief.
That would be denial, not the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. You can read more about the fallacy here.[quote=“marvin, post:95, topic:37310”]
If you are a scientist you know that we accept a theory based on the absence of falsification of the existing theory, but know that our theory can always be falsified if data become available that our theory cannot explain or a theory becomes available that offers a better explanation.
[/quote]
We accept theories because they make accurate predictions (i.e. positive evidence) AND are not falsified. You need both. I know of no theory in science that is accepted solely on the weight that there is no evidence against it. All theories that I am aware of are supported by positive evidence. For example, the Big Bang theory predicted the existence of the cosmic microwave background, and that prediction was confirmed in the 1960’s. That is positive evidence for the theory, things that we should see if the theory is true and evidence which distinguishes it from competing theories.[quote=“marvin, post:95, topic:37310”]
Now when it comes to challenging a status quo, e.g. the generally accepted theory that we generally observe that lifeforms are preceded by other lifeforms and that creation requires agency the burden of proof lies with the person questioning the accepted theory to show it to be wrong.
[/quote]
Does the creation of a cloud require an outside agency? Does the creation of lightning require outside agency? It seems that you have made an assertion without evidence to support it.[quote=“marvin, post:95, topic:37310”]
Thus if someone thinks life can come about without an agency from matter be my guest and provide evidence for it.
[/quote]
That is exactly what scientists are currently doing, searching for that evidence. I am more than happy to state that we don’t know how life came to be. I fully agree that anyone making a positive claim as to the origin of life needs to present positive evidence. In the absence of any evidence, that doesn’t make a supernatural origin of life true.[quote=“marvin, post:95, topic:37310”]
So if God is to be treated as a hypothesis I have not seen any evidence suggesting it to have failed, apart from those who mix up God with Santa and think him to be a magic Genie that fulfills our wishes upon prayer. But those people have a magic genie hypothesis, not a God hypothesis as a magic genie is not coherent with observed reality.
[/quote]
A God who created separate species and a universe 6,000 years ago that then went through a recent and global flood . . . that God hypothesis has been falsified.
And so you make my point for me!
If you are worried about a proof that is not really a proof… and how easy it is to make the mistake…
then your earlier statement still troubles me.
You can say: “A belief can only be converted into knowledge by obtaining proof…”
But this is not the same as saying all this confusing chaos of linguistic vectors:
“. . . if you have proof of a dead body of A in front of you and that causes you to believe that A is dead you must be a bit daft as you should now know that A is dead.”
That is pretty awful.
You can Believe you have a dead body because of a hunch, or because someone proved it to you.
Insisting that 100% knowledge makes it impossible to “believe” is a travesty of linguistic logic.
We will go down a familiar path with this - what is a “God hypothesis?” What is the difference between professing faith in God, and some type of “burden of proof” that some atheists seek?
A very long time ago, I found Kant’s discussion of the dialectic in his Critique informative. In mundane terms, human reason can find many reasonable ways to believe God exists, and an equal number of reasons to believe god does not exist.
Biblically God has chosen individuals to be witnesses to Him - it is up to us to decide to believe them.
I cannot make sense of this comment - who has made an argument regarding a measurable aspect of God?
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.