Is belief or unbelief more reasonable?

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

Why would it be a stretch calling a cell (fertilized egg) dividing into several billion differentiated cells miraculous? Can you explain how this happens?

What is your definition of miraculous Bill? It seems to be “any natural process Bill doesn’t understand”. That’s not the same definition of a miracle most other people use which is “a phenomenon caused by supernatural intervention”.

[r_speir]

@T_aquaticus

As to your overall thesis, it is about the burden of proof. If someone claims that God exists then they have to provide the evidence. The beginning position, with a lack of compelling evidence, is unbelief. A lack of a belief in the absence of evidence for a claim is the most reasonable.

Well, you are completely wrong. Tell me, which is easier - that God exists or does not exist? If you can prove that his non-existence is the easier philosophical way, then you may wiggle out of your end of the burden.

However, if you fail to argue convincingly that his non-existence is easier, then you are equally burdened in your set of beliefs to prove that he does not exist.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T_aquaticus

The beginning position, with a lack of compelling evidence, is unbelief. A lack of a belief in the absence of evidence for a claim is the most reasonable.

My observation is you simply deny evidence exists. Its all around you but if it contradicts your preferred ideology you filter it out. Worldview’s are very powerful filters. Miraculous events occur everyday however your filter converts miraculous events to normal events.

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@Dan_Eastwood

@thoughtful

Do you agree then it’s begging the question?

Sorry, but having just joined the discussion, can you point me to the question being begged. I will read from there and catch up.

Tim said:

@Tim

Not a meaningful question, as for the reasons I’ve already stated, neither “belief” nor “unbelief” is a single proposition. The only way you can evaluate that question is to evaluate it individually for all values of X.

@Tim

I said “There is not a single proposition “unbelief”, it is a compound of lack of belief in a number of propositions …”

tbh, @Tim I apologize and I’m sorry I didn’t reread your posts, as well as read them more carefully. With two many conversations, I was getting your replies mixed up with Puck below.

@Puck_Mendelssohn

Unbelief in the paranormal is not a proposition, but merely the failure to have been convinced by any particular attempt to demonstrate the paranormal. As a non-proposition, consisting only of the absence of other belief, it is neither falsifiable nor nonfalsifiable. It’s not in the class of things to which falsifiability applies. Affirmative rejection of a particular proposition may be falsifiable.

then @Dan_Eastwood you said:

@Dan_Eastwood

The atheist postition (often) is this is a single proposition and it’s negative - not two propositions. Positive proposition are preferred because you can’t prove a negative.

That atheists make other positive propositions, just not ones about gods.

I was arguing that the way @Puck_Mendelssohn had stated it, atheism is unfalsifiable, or as @Dan_Eastwood mentioned sometimes atheists also state it as a single negative proposition but you can’t prove a negative.

Both of these definitions some atheists have given seem to be a logical fallacy to me since they are begging the question.

If you look at all values of X including unbelief or atheism and and decide which is the most plausible, then I think we are all on the same page that that is the most logical and rational thing to do. Are we?

[Timothy_Horton]

@colewd

My observation is you simply deny evidence exists. Its all around you but if it contradicts your preferred ideology you filter it out. Worldview’s are very powerful filters. Miraculous events occur everyday however your filter converts miraculous events to normal events.

You forgot to give us your definition of “miraculous”. Does it mean anything you don’t understand?

[AlanFox]

Are you claiming Jesus was haploid?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Timothy_Horton

You forgot to give us your definition of “miraculous”.

Let’s try miraculous is the awe in observation of everything that exists including matter and living organisms. Science does a reasonable job explaining the function of both matter and living organisms yet it is not able to explain their ultimate origin which I would call miraculous.

[Faizal_Ali]

@colewd

Let’s try miraculous is the awe in observation of everything that exists including matter and living organisms. Science does a reasonable job explaining the function of both matter and living organisms yet it is not able to explain their ultimate origin which I would call miraculous.

So “Miraculous of the gaps.” Ok, then.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@Faizal_Ali

So “Miraculous of the gaps.” Ok, then.

What gaps? Limits of science?

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

Tell me, which is easier - that God exists or does not exist?

Burden of proof. That lies with you.

@r_speir

If you can prove that his non-existence is the easier philosophical way, then you may wiggle out of your end of the burden.

That would be a shift in the burden of proof, which is a logical fallacy. You are claiming God exists, so it is up to you to supply the evidence. It isn’t up to the skeptics to disprove a claim backed by no evidence.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

Science does a reasonable job explaining the function of both matter and living organisms yet it is not able to explain their ultimate origin which I would call miraculous.

God of the gaps. That’s a logical fallacy which is unreasonable.

God of the gaps

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@T_aquaticus

It isn’t up to the skeptics to disprove a claim backed by no evidence.

That the universe exists isn’t enough evidence for the atheist to have to prove there is no God?

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T_aquaticus

God of the gaps. That’s a logical fallacy which is unreasonable.

The discussion is about the miraculous and how science does not explain origins. It examines what has been created. You need another tool for the job which is called theology.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

My observation is you simply deny evidence exists. Its all around you but if it contradicts your preferred ideology you filter it out.

The problem is that when asked we get stuff like God of the Gaps arguments, which are logical fallacies, not evidence.

@colewd

Worldview’s are very powerful filters.

Irony noted.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

The discussion is about the miraculous and how science does not explain origins.

The only evidence you give for the marculous is science can’t explain it. That’s an argument from ignorance (aka God of the Gaps).

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T_aquaticus

The problem is that when asked we get stuff like God of the Gaps arguments, which are logical fallacies, not evidence.

Design arguments which show evidence of design are not God of the Gaps arguments. What has been essentially set up is naturalism of the Gaps.

[T_aquaticus]

@thoughtful

That the universe exists isn’t enough evidence for the atheist to have to prove there is no God?

That’s a shift in the burden of proof, an unreasonable logical fallacy. You are claiming that God exists. Therefore, the burden of proof lies with you, not with unbelievers.

I don’t know if God exists, but I lack a belief in deities because I have yet to see compelling evidence for their existence. I have also yet to see compelling positive evidence that the universe was created by a deity. All I seem to get is “Well, science can’t explain it”.

[T_aquaticus]

@colewd

Design arguments which show evidence of design are not God of the Gaps arguments.

Yes, they are. Every one of them is “Well, evolution can’t do it, so it must be design”.

[colewd (Bill Cole)]

@T_aquaticus

The only evidence you give for the marculous is science can’t explain it. That’s an argument from ignorance (aka God of the Gaps).

Its an argument from the fact that science cannot explain it. Science is not the right tool for the job if it cannot explain it.

@T_aquaticus

Yes, they are. Every one of them is “Well, evolution can’t do it, so it must be design”.

Have you ever heard of a purposeful arrangement of parts? Have you ever thought about it? It’s a positive argument for design.

Your filter is limiting you.

[Faizal_Ali]

@colewd

You need another tool for the job which is called theology.

Yeah, that’ll work. “This jack hammer can’t crack this block of granite no matter how hard I try. So that means hitting it with a wet noodle will do the job.”