All claims need to meet their burden of proof IF our goal is to hold reasonable beliefs.
— Nickolasgaspar

What if the proof can't be given? How can I possibly give a proof? — Hillary

This is why I object to saying anyone has some abstract "burden of proof". If our goal is rational beliefs, the beliefs must be rationally justified, which is weaker than "proof". More often than not, the justification is an inference to best explanation - and these can be quite weak.

Matter consists of real particles that inflated into real existence from virtual particles. — Hillary

That's not a view consistent with Quantum Field Theory, which holds that quantum fields are fundamental, particles are quanta of quantum fields, and "virtual particles" just useful, computational fictions that are used to describe certain behaviors of quantum fields other than particle behavior. See this article. Here's a snippet:

A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle. A particle is a nice, regular ripple in a field, one that can travel smoothly and effortlessly through space, like a clear tone of a bell moving through the air. A “virtual particle”, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.

No. Its not circular, as no cause or reason for existence is given by physics. Only gods can do that. The Default State is gods plus the universe they created. . — Hillary

Theists are apt to form arguments from ignorance based on the current state of physics, so I don't play that game. As I mentioned, I'm examining this in terms of materialist metaphysics. I defended the notion that the past is finite, and a finite past entails an uncaused first cause, which by definition cannot have a cause - and therefore no causal explanation. If you were to insist it must have a non-causal explanation, then you have the burden to show that non-causal explanations are metaphysically necessary for existence. Or is this just another of your unstated premises that you choose to believe as a "default"? :-)

All claims positing that gods don't exist need to prove that claim and by repeating that I must give the proof, the real circular reasoning is exposed.

All premises in an argument need to be supported, including unstated premises. I'm not making an argument, so I have no such burden; I'm just critiquing yours.

the claim that diverges from the default state needs to prove the claim gods don't exist. I don't have to prove anything within the realm of creation

You're confused. You presented an argument, and if you can't make a case for its soundness then the argument (as presented) is vacuous. You believe in God. I got that, and I have not suggested I can prove your belief false. So what is the point of presenting an argument that you can't defend other than by saying "prove it false (or unsound)?" Is it not obvious that such an argument would persuade no one? So what is the point of presenting it? Why not simply assert "I believe in God. Prove me wrong," since that's essentially what you're doing in a roundabout way?

You mentioned it here: " I don't need to give proof because my default state (thanks, Nickolas!) is a material universe with eternal gods." — Relativist

Yes, but that was not in the five points. Your default state is the universe without gods. Do you have proof? — Hillary

Your first stated premise is contingent upon the existence of gods. Without that assumption, no one would consider your argument sound. That's my point. I don't have a "default state" about gods (you may be mistaking me with someone else), but I'm pointing out that someone presenting an argument has the burden of arguing for its soundness. If you aren't able to do that, then just admit it.

BTW, I don't subscribe to there being some objective "burden of proof" for a position, but I do believe rationality entails having rational justifications for what we believe — Relativist


What about the ratio, "reason for existence"? Can I be more rational? — Hillary

What you just said makes no sense ("ratio"?!). So yes, you can be more rational.

I recommend reading about Artificial Neural Networks:

Neural networks learn (or are trained) by processing examples, each of which contains a known "input" and "result," forming probability-weighted associations between the two, which are stored within the data structure of the net itself. The training of a neural network from a given example is usually conducted by determining the difference between the processed output of the network (often a prediction) and a target output. This difference is the error. The network then adjusts its weighted associations according to a learning rule and using this error value. Successive adjustments will cause the neural network to produce output which is increasingly similar to the target output. After a sufficient number of these adjustments the training can be terminated based upon certain criteria. This is known as supervised learning.

Such systems "learn" to perform tasks by considering examples, generally without being programmed with task-specific rules. For example, in image recognition, they might learn to identify images that contain cats by analyzing example images that have been manually labeled as "cat" or "no cat" and using the results to identify cats in other images. They do this without any prior knowledge of cats, for example, that they have fur, tails, whiskers, and cat-like faces. Instead, they automatically generate identifying characteristics from the examples that they process.

By "Universe", I'm referring to the entirety of material reality. I accept the assumption of a finite past (just as the Kalam does) - so there is no "infinite sequence". I infer there to have been an initial state, one that has the potential to fluctuate into one or more "big bangs". The initial state accounts for everything subsequent. I'm invoking no particular cosmology (string theory or otherwise). I'm examining this from a materialist metaphysical standpoint.

Material cannot have brought itself into existence, even when eternal. How? What's the physical process behind the emergence of matter? — Hillary

An initial state does not entail being "brought into" existence, it entails it existing uncaused and "eternally" - in that there is no time at which it doesn't exist.

I don't understand your issue with "matter", as that's not controversial: matter is composed of particles, particles are quanta of quantum fields, which came to exist as our "universe" (i.e. the product of the "big bang" that we examine retrospectively) cooled after the big bang.

Let's see. My first statement is:

1)We have found the cause of the universe and all gaps are closed.
No gods mentioned! — Hillary

You mentioned it here: " I don't need to give proof because my default state (thanks, Nickolas!) is a material universe with eternal gods."

The infinite chain of cause and effect (serial big bangs) needs outside creatures to be brought into existence (in an infinite past). — Hillary

Supposing an infinite past is somehow feasible, what is an "outside creature"? As noted, I regard "the universe" as the entirety of material reality; hence there are no "outside creatures". Assume such things, if you like, but don't then claim you've proven one of these actually exists when you simply assume it.

Non-intelligent matter needs eternal intelligences to exist. I don't need to give proof because my default state (thanks, Nickolas!) is a material universe with eternal gods.

So your argument is circular.

It's me who should ask evidence for their non-existence.

You presented an argument that ostensibly proves there's a God. Your argument is a failure, for all the reasons I stated. If this argument is at all related to your justification for belief, then I conclude your belief in God is irrational. Calling it a "default" doesn't rationally justify holding it as a belief. Personally, I prefer to hold rational beliefs.

BTW, I don't subscribe to there being some objective "burden of proof" for a position, but I do believe rationality entails having rational justifications for what we believe. I'm aware of many atheists who's belief in the non-existence of gods is rational, and I'm open to the possibility there may be theists who hold their beliefs rationally. Maybe I'll encounter such a person someday.

I can sense a trend here: The gestational age at which fetuses can survive outside the womb has decreased over the past century or so and is decreasing in step with advances in (bio)technology. It appears that a time will come when even a zygote will be viable ex-utero. What then? Abortion would immediately have to be made illegal, oui? — Agent Smith

If at some future point, it becomes possible to artificially gestate a zygote, then abortions will be obsolete if the pro-lifers are willing to pay for the gestation service (can't be cheap), and to divide up the resulting children among themselves to be raised.

I'm alluding to a general problem I have with many pro-lifers: it's easy express moral outrage at abortion, while shrugging off the fact that the alternative has life-altering consequences for the mother who gives birth ("that's their problem, but I'll pray for them").

We have not actually found such a cause. — Relativist
I have. — Hillary

In that case, your first premise is based on this unstated premise that a God exists, which makes your argument circular.

Not neccessarily [irreducible], but in the real world it is, as you will realize how it works. — Hillary

No, because an initial state of affairs can possibly be reducible to distinct, atomic states of affairs.

You also clalm that an irreducible cause can't explain it's own cause, but irreducibility is irrelevant: a first cause is uncaused, and therefore it's logically impossible for there to be a causal explanation for it. To assume other sorts of explanations exist entails another unstated premise requiring support.

There is support. The existence of the universe. — Hillary

The universe is a natural entity, so clearly doesn't imply anything exists other than the natural.

Material, even when eternal, cannot have brought itself into existence. — Hillary

Irrelevant - you seem to be making another unsupported assumption that material objects cannot exist uncaused.

Only eternal intelligences can do that. — Hillary

How could anything cause itself? If intelligence is needed to cause something, then you require an infinite series of prior causes. An uncaused initial state is coherent.

How is the right to privacy grounds for right to abortion? — Agent Smith

This article may help:

"The constitutional right to privacy protects the liberty of people to make certain crucial decisions regarding their well-being without government coercion, intimidation, or interference. Such crucial decisions may concern religious faith, moral values, political affiliation, marriage, procreation, or death. The federal Constitution guarantees the right of individuals to make these decisions according to their own conscience and beliefs. The government is not constitutionally permitted to regulate such deeply personal matters."

Your objection about what a juror might believe and how we evaluate beliefs in our everyday life do not justify your assumptions that any rejection is based on the opposite belief.Can you see that problem? — Nickolasgaspar

We're discussing propositional attitudes developed through judgment. I don't believe there's anything controversial about my usage: In simplest terms, I may judge the proposition true, false, or withhold (suspend) judgment. Nuances can be added, such as degree of belief. Your usage appears to be non-standard in the realm of philosophy. Defending your usage with a standard dictionary is problematic, since these are general use and reflect common usage - not prescribing a particular systematic usage as is done in philosophy. If I'm mistaken, and you believe you are consistent with standard epistemology, please point me at a reference.

You c↪Relativist
You can either reject a claim either because you are not convinced, or because you are convinced of the opposite.
That is not defined by stating your rejection!
i.e. By rejecting the claim (god exists) that makes me an Atheist...not an Antitheist.(Hard Atheist).
In order to be an Antitheist, I must accept the opposite claims (God's do not exist). — Nickolasgaspar

What I reject is your terminology. I explained what I meant, and you seem to insist I use the words the way you choose to use them.

When a jury finds the defendant not guilty , it doesn't mean that they think he is innocent. They only examine whether the prosecution can meet the burden of proving him guilty. We don't demand from the defendant to prove his innocence because the burden is on those who make the claim (accusation). We don't simultaneously examine two different claims (innocent and gulity) because not proving A doesn't mean B!!!!!!

Sure, but the standards jurors apply to verdicts do not prevent a juror from privately forming a belief based on a lower standard. In everyday life, we form most of our beliefs on a much lower standard than that. Consider a civil trial in which jurors are instructed to base judgment on a preponderance of evidence (i.e.slightly more evidence in one direction). Do you allow them to form a private belief on that basis? If so, you should allow them to form a private belief on the same standard in a criminal trial. A private belief needn't correspond to the jury instruction. Belief formation doesn't work that way.

A I said, we're using the words differently, particularly "reject". You use reject to mean "reserve judgement".

A judgment in a criminal trial is a bit different. I may believe a dependent guilty based on it seeming more likely than not, but acquit because there is reasonable doubt. IOW, I can believe something without being absolutely certain.

in reality you reject A (god exists) and accept B(gods do not exist) which is a different claim.
You either have to accept or reject a claim without the need to declare it wrong (judge it) because you are then addressing a different claim. — Nickolasgaspar

I don't understand what you're saying. If I accept a proposition, that means I believe it true. Rejection means I believe it false. I neither accept nor reject the proposition "there is life of Europa"; i.e. I reserve judgment. You seem to use the words differently.

11% of atheists are pro life. So it's not necessarily a religious view. — frank

That's a small fraction, and I would guess many of them are malleable/educable (e.g. the survey shows the fraction was reduced from a 2007 survey). A view rooted a a religious belief will be incorrigible.

Nevertheless, if a portion of the community is crying "murder," it's your business. — frank

I agree, and I've brought up this issue with many of them. I understand and respect that it's murder from their perspective, and that this is a valid perspective. This seems to be what you are trying to convey, but I'm just adding that it's worthwhile to try to help them understand that other perspectives are also valid.

Yes, and that which is real (i.e. ineluctable, more-than-intersubjective) is independent of "faith". — 180 Proof

Yes- in general, things exist irrespective of people believing they exist. But faith entails an unjustified belief. Belief in God can be unjustified even if a God exists.

Hypothetically, let's assume a God exists: a being who created the universe, but does not intervene in its affairs post-creation. (Christianity is false in this scenario, because it entails an interventionist god). Joe believes a God exists because he was raised Christian and unquestioningly accepted what he was taught. Joe's belief in God is unjustified, and it's mere coincidence that his belief is true (i.e. it's a Gettier problem).

You either accept a claim or you don't...there isn't a middle ground. — Nickolasgaspar

Not true. One can reserve judgment. e.g. I reserve judgment as to whether there is life on Europa.

On the other hand, I do not reserve judgment as to the existence of gods. I believe these things don't exist. It's not an incorrigible belief, but it's a justifiable one, in that it's the best explanation for the available evidence.

1)We have found the cause of the universe and all gaps are closed.
2)An irreducible cause can have no deeper natural explanation or explain it's own cause.
3)The only logical explanation for the existence of the material universe are non-material supernatural causes.
4)Only supernatural intelligent being can bring non-intelligent material into existence.
5)The only logical conclusion: gods exist. — Hillary

Numerous problems with your argument:
1) We have not actually found such a cause.
2) A first cause isn't necessarily irreducible
3) Assertion without support: assumes something supernatural actually exists that has the capability to design and produce a universe. Why believe such a complex entity just happens to exist? Why exempt it from requiring cause?
4) Unstated premise that material is brought into existence. An initial state of material reality does not entail being "brought into" existence; it entails no earlier state.

Why isn't it happening the other way round though? — EugeneW

Some physicists (e.g. Sean Carroll) have suggested that time may actually be symmetrical, such that there is a mirror universe to our own, with an arrow of time running in the opposite direction.

We don't screen voters for their justifications. You're a citizen, you get a vote. — frank

Of course, but the establishment clause prohibits laws that force a particular religious view on the rest of us. That's what abortion bans do.

There's more to it, of course, but this aspect is rarely brought up.

. Abortion is either murder or it's not. If it is, it's everybody's business.

No - there's no objectively correct answer. Is a zygote a human being? What establishes that? God implanting a soul? "Human being" is a fuzzy concept.

I think it's unsurprising Roe v. Wade is being overturned. That a majority of the Justices intended to do so has been apparent, despite their disingenuous and cynical performances during the appointment process (itself something of a farce). — Ciceronianus

It's true they were being disingenuous, but almost everyone knew which way they leaned - that's why Dems opposed them and GOP supported them.

Anti-abortion voters had an advantage over pro-choice voters: they were single issue voters- they wouldn't vote for a dog-catcher if they suspected she was pro-choice. Pro-choice voters weighed this among a variety of issues, and I suspect many just took Roe v Wade for granted.

if some Americans firmly believe abortion is murder, that matters. Their opinion shouldn't be brushed aside in the name of someone's privacy. — frank

But if their view on this is rooted in their religion, then it shouldn't be the determinant of what is law. There are reasonable approaches they could take to reduce abortions: support agencies that provide medical and other financial support for poor, pregnant women; education; ensuring access to birth control; adopting (otherwise) unwanted children...

In my opinion, both pro-lifers and pro-choices have a point. It would be ridiculous to allow abortions the day before delivery while considering it murder the day after. So at what point does the fetus stop becoming part of the woman’s body and start becoming a “baby” (sorites paradox)? At what point does it deserve moral consideration? Scalar morality could help here. — Paulm12

That's a fair point, and I haven't had a problem with placing some reasonable restrictions - although there should be medical exceptions in any case.

I agree that the notion of god is incoherent and I think that this is the idea's strength for a lot of believers. — Tom Storm

I'd call it more of a fuzzy concept: having a vague set of vaguely defined properties. One (fairly popular) vague property is the ability to grant wishes.

[

the opponents to Roe vs, Wade have maintained a 50 year (1973-2022) campaign to overturn the decision. Victory at this point can not be a surprise, because piece-by-piece, the conservatives have been moving necessary pieces on the political chessboard toward checkmate. — Bitter Crank

Bingo. It was inevitable, considering their laser focus.

Left-leaning people were far too complacent, taking their successes for granted, and not recognizing that there's a struggle to retain their gains. Same sex marriage could easily be next to go.

I view "agnostic" as an internal epistemological-psychological belief state of "not knowing", where "knowing" is in the strict philosophical sense of justified-true-belief (non-Gettier). Based on this view, we're all agnostic.

I did the experiment on another forum to try to distil only the common properties imagined of a god from a handful of Christians and the result was an empty set. — ArmChairPhilosopher

Isn't there at least agreement that God had the ability to create a life-permitting universe?

If life is found, the first question will be whether it is directly related to life on earth. It's possible life originated on Mars, and came here via meteorite. Or it could have an extra-solar origin, came to both Earth and Mars from that source.

I feel kind of apathetic about it. It couldn't have happened without the participation of a lot of women, so they got what they wanted. — frank

Less than 20% of all women want an outright ban on abortion, and yes - they may get what they wanted- at least in some states.

The funny thing is, I came to the forum today to see if the leaked SCOTUS opinion was being discussed. I found this thread, but didn't notice that it was started by me, two years ago, and that it confirms my powers of prophecy :-)

Bear in mind that Craig believes the past is finite. He has traditionally argued that the big bang confirms this (he may have abandoned that, by now), but nevertheless argues against an infinite past on philosophical principles (in essence: the apparent impossibility of a completed infinity)

Next, he assumes a finite past implies the universe "popped into existence". This is a problematic characterization because it implies there is an existence into-which a universe pops. A finite past merely implies there was an initial, uncaused state, which didn't "pop in", but rather existed with the potential to evolve.

I assume this will result in higher than expected turnout in the mid-term election, and this will help Dems a bit.

It is unfortunate that cancer did not kill justice Ginsburg earlier than it did. — Streetlight

It sounds like you are vehemently anti-choice, but not for religious reasons, based on the comment.

So then, wouldn't it stand to reason that if someone categorizes individual Christians it may end the same way? — whollyrolling

Despite there being plenty of deviation by individuals, if someone tells me they're Catholic, Evangelical Christian, LDS, or Jehovah's Witness, I can make some reasonable assumptions about some of their core beliefs. On the other hand, atheism is so broad, there's not much one can reasonably assume.

Relativist: "It may cloud one's understanding of individuals."

I'm saying that atheism is simple and that peripheral belief systems, much like what happens with religion outside the definition of theism, are not inherent to the labels "theist" or "atheist". — whollyrolling

No individual's belief system is "simple". Of course, you can draw some simple distinctions - like inferring that as an atheist I don't believe in "God", but the sort of inferences you can justifiably make are limited. As an example from personal experience: I've encountered many strawman arguments that "prove" atheism is false, which are pointless if they apply to almost no one.

What objective do you have in mind for drawing certain (simple?) distinctions about atheists (or clusters of atheists)?

You don’t get to dictate systems of belief or lack thereof, nor do you get to dictate how people wish to define said systems. Are you saying there is no diversity among atheistic positions? If so, provide an argument. If not, then there is diversity, thus “forms” of atheism. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

"Forms? "Systems"? Sounds like a post-hoc classification scheme.

I label myself "atheist" because I don't believe in a god of religion (I believe such a hypothetical being does not exist). I also label myself as "agnostic deist": I consider it a live possibility (and only a possibility) there exists some sort of teleological locus - a generic "deity" that establishes a direction for the evolution of the universe.

IMO, most self-labelled atheists have somewhat unique sets of beliefs, like I do. Consequently, it may not be worthwhile to categorize atheists into "forms" or "systems", like one can with religions and denominations of Christianity. It may cloud one's understanding of individuals. But if you feel compelled to categorize, I suggest identifying clusters of beliefs among people who self-identify as atheist or agnostic, while bearing in mind the beliefs of any individual are more nuanced. Perhaps there are some sociological studies that do this. But if you're grouping people based on personal observation, I question the usefulness.

a. While it is possible only one first cause happened, there is no reason that there should be any limitation on the number of first causes, or that first causes cannot happen today.

This necessarily follows from the rule that there are no limitations as to what a first cause can be.

b. Proving if a particular parcel of existence is a first cause may be impossible.

If there are no limitations on what a first cause can be, then a particle with velocity could have popped into existence. If we traced causality back to this first cause particle, we would see it had velocity at its origin. That would cause us to try to find what caused the particle to have velocity. We may very well believe it is another existence that caused the velocity of the particle, when the reality is it was uncaused. — Philosophim

A first cause didn't "happen", it just is (or was). It couldn't "pop into existence", because that implies there is an existence (experiencing time) into which it can pop - in which case, this existence is the first cause.

Velocity is relative (object A has a velocity relative to object B), not absolute - so there is nothing for a first cause object to have a velocity relative to.

I have no problem with there being a first cause, but it seems likely to have been some sort of quantum system.

I was curious how (or if) metaphysical naturalists reconcile a universe governed by only natural laws with free will. I can’t tell if this is only due to a growing skepticism around free will, or what actually seems to be an incompatibility between free will and metaphysical naturalism. I tried searching on here but didn’t see any topics on the matter. — Paulm12

Compatibilism is a view of free will that is consistent with determinism. To understand compatibilism, and how it can be considered "free will", first consider how you would make an important freely-willed choice:

You would try to think of all the consequences, some would be good some would be bad. You might weigh these against one another. You might give greater weight to long term consequences, or perhaps you'd be more inclined to receive a sure short term benefit instead of a possible long term detriment that may or may not occur. All of the factors you would consider would come from you, your mind - your knowledge of the world, your hopes, your dreams, your desires, and your worries and fears.

Now suppose determinism is true. What would actually be different in the decision process? The decision still comes from within, it is still produced by deliberation with all the same factors. Your knowledge of the world would not be any different; you'd have the same hopes, dreams, desires, worries, and fears. Would you choose differently? Why? All the factors that lead to a choice are there.

Free will is generally taken to mean that you could have made a different choice than the one you actually made. Could you have chosen differently if determinism is true? Yes –if you had more (or less) knowledge, had stronger feelings, or were more (or less) willing to take risks... There are factors in any decision, even if the decision is based purely on whim.

*EDIT* I'll add that compatibilism is consistent with moral responsibility. A wrong-doer would have done good had he held different beliefs, so it is incumbent upon society to encourage morally correct belief.

Are there any truly random phenomena in the universe? That, my friend, is the million dollar question. — Agent Smith

The outcome of a quantum collapse is random (not to be confused with uniformly distributed).

Here's a white paper by a company that produces a true random number generator using quantum collapse.

I think that agnosticism is a better and more prudent position when it comes to the existence of God or a Diety then Atheism as per the above definition. The agnostic does not rule out the existence of God whereas the Atheist does. What are your thoughts ? — Deus

My thought is that an individual's beliefs are too nuanced to be fully captured by a label. In a sense, I'm an agnostic-deist - I think it's a live possibility that some sort of entity might exist that intentionally caused the universe. I also consider such an entity's existence to be irrelevant, because IMO, a God-of-religion is not a live option. It's merely logically possible.

OK, then when you said:

"is there a difference in the subjective experience of the believer who tends to believe in true beliefs, versus one who tends to believe in false beliefs?"

--are you applying this to the initial, intuitive hunch, or to a later stage in the belief formation process?

C.S. Lewis trilemma depends on the assumption that the Gospels (particularly John) accurately convey things Jesus actually said about himself. If you believe this, you're a Christian - no point complicating the matter. Seems to give Christians a false sense of security, somewhat like Habernas' minimal facts "proof" of the Resurrection.

is there a difference in the subjective experience of the believer who tends to believe in true beliefs, versus one who tends to believe in false beliefs? — Pantagruel

I don't think that's the best question to ask. It seems to me the real issue is the relative strength of epistemic justification. This filters out the lucky guesses, and doesn't depend on the unstated premise that the truth is actually available to judge whether or not the belief is false.

Unfortunately it’s a dangerous game. Such hoax-worthy lies have brought the US and Russia that much closer to war. Skepticism of the story proved not only right, but prudent. — NOS4A2

The article you linked said:
"U.S. intelligence only had “low to moderate” confidence in the story after all. Translated from the jargon of spyworld, that means the intelligence agencies have found the story is, at best, unproven—and possibly untrue."

How do you get "hoax" out of "unproven and possibly untrue"?

It's all good.

TBH, I was surprised at NOS4A2's response. I stupidly assumed everyone would agree that girl deserved to go to prison.