'There Is No God', or 'I Believe There Is No God'?

[SGOS]

I don't think we can say the Christian god does not exist just because we are free to say Thor does not exist.  The problem is that when we say, "Thor doesn't exist," we are actually taking some logical liberties.  It's understood that what we are really saying is, "There is no logical reason to believe Thor exists."  The same rules of logic are in play if we refer to Thor or the Christian god.  You can say Thor does not exist, and you won't get an objection from me, because I read into that you are talking in terms of probabilities, the same probabilities that exist with the Christian god.  However, if you say with absolute certainty that Thor does not exist, I won't make a big deal out of that either, but I'm not going to take it literally, unless you can prove to me that Thor is not looking down from somewhere ready to throw his hammer.

[Baruch]

There is no God, and I believe there is no God, so my belief seems to mirror reality.

Mere coincidence? I think not.

Feynman would disagree on principle.  If you find what you are looking for, you are looking in the wrong place ;-)  Confirmation bias is pernicious.

Default position: Nothing exists.  So what do we mean by nothing, what by exists?  Is this a reductio ad absurdum in itself?  Are we trying to outdo Descartes or Sartre?  Parmenides started with word definition ... nothing means not exist ... so to him our short sentence is non-sense.  Parmenides would say that nothing does not exist, by definition.  And that whatever is not nothing, then has to exist.  Two pairs, synonymous to each other.  Or is Parmenides wrong?

Mike ... your mother exists, does she?  If you were adopted, and you are referring to your adoptive mother, is she your real mother?  If you are adopted and your natural mother is dead, then you can say your mother doesn't exist ... and your mother does exist ... but the noun refers to two different people ... without you pointing out your slight of hand.  If you are referring to your natural mother, and she is still alive, then you can demonstrate that your mother exists ... provided that you credit her with raising you also.  If you have a step mother or adoptive mother who raised you ... then "mother" is ambiguous.  If your natural mother raised you, and she is still alive, then you are on yet firmer ground to assert that your mother exists.  But what if she is dead?  Does she still exist?  That is exactly what people want to know.  She wouldn't then exist in the present, but did exist in the past, at least, though that is less demonstrable with deceased people.  So existence is tied to your model of time.  If I say that existence only means the present, then if your mother were deceased, then  could only say that she doesn't exist, with the implication that past and future are also taken as non-existent.  That is where the definition not of mother, but exist ... catches up with us.  In the space time continuum of classical physics, determinism rules ... so not only does the past still exist, along with the present, but the future already exists, so basically everyone is both alive and dead, depending on the time cut.  And present or not present (in space) based on the space cut.  So a person could exist, but not be present in space or in the present time.  If one doesn't exist in the present space and time (locally) ... but does exist elsewhere and at some other time, does one exist?  Of course quantum mechanics disagrees with all this, and if we add infinite numbers of universes, it gets even worse (As some thing quantum mechanics requires, but not all agree).

[trdsf]

Sorry about the delay replying; lots of good meat here to get into, and this may be a long post.

Ah, but any effect it produces, miracles, if you will, are a separate thing entirely.  If you wished to find evidence one way or the other you would start with the miracles.  As you are well aware no case of magic has ever been proven.  Every miracle ever investigated by science instead of a church has either been disproved or not enough evidence existed to draw a conclusion.  All this proves is that these supposed miracles were not caused by a god, but by humans or some natural force.  Since, by disproving the miracle, you proved they did not come from any god you have then separated them from that god and they therefore say nothing about that god because they weren't "of it".

If a miracle is an effect of a deity, it's still an effect upon this universe by something alleged to be outside it.  And that leaves a flat contradiction and one has to choose between spontaneous miracles with no will behind them, or an ineffective external deity who's barred from interfering in reality.

Of course, the so-called will of god is frequently cited in the demonstrably non-miraculous as if it were a miracle, usually in the form of counterfactuals (if god hadn't made me late, I'd've been on that flight that crashed, that sort of thing).  And in the absence of documentation, the MSU (Make Shit Up) principle applies: the Catholic Encyclopedia states in all seriousness, for example that the "estimate that about 4000 cures have been obtained at Lourdes within the first fifty years of the pilgrimage is undoubtedly considerably less than the actual number."  And this in the face of the Vatican's own "verified" number of 69 cures, no more, no less.

Let's take the example of Lourdes, which has has about 200 million visitors since Bernadette Soubirous reported her hallucinations.  As stated, the RCC has "verified" 69 "miracle" cures, but be it 69 or 4000, that's still no better than the known rates of spontaneous remission for various diseases, and not one single one has ever been something indisputably miraculous, like the restoration of a documented lost limb.

And this can be filed as a sort of negative evidence: "My god did this miracle!"  "Well, no, actually what happened was this..."

Even so, if you take miracles out of it, what mechanism remains for an external god to have any effect on the universe?  If one is to be satisfied with a completely external god, then Occam's Razor comes back into play, since that means a self-explaining universe and god is unnecessary.

I wouldn't go so far as to give it the status of "hypothesis".  More like "fanciful dream".  A deity, by nature, is going to have powers and abilities which we would consider "magical".  While a sufficiently advanced alien using technology could make it appear to us that he had magical powers he would still not be a deity because the power would be technological, not inherent.  Any deity would, by its nature, be "supernatural".  Science is not equipped to deal with the supernatural, only the natural.

I think 'hypothesis' is okay to use here, as it was an early human attempt to explain how the world around them worked, and explicitly was in regard to a god's effects on this world.  And I think it fair to say that this explanation has been supplanted by more recent and better observations.

But maybe the 'god explanation' would be a more accurate phrasing.

Again, there is a difference between effects on the universe and the existence of any deity.  Once you discredit any give magic as having a purely natural cause you have separated it from the supernatural, meaning it now says nothing whatsoever about the supernatural.  It is evidence neither for nor against anything supernatural because you have attributed a purely natural cause to it.

If you're going to reduce god to being something completely external with no effect to the observed universe, you may as well say there isn't one since it's been completely exempted from observation.

That is because "There is no Zeus" became fact when it became indisputably true.  No one cares if you say Zeus isn't real.  No one disagrees with you.  They don't bat an eye simply because they don't care.

What's the difference between Zeus and Yahweh that Zeus is 'disproved' and Yahweh isn't?  Certainly if the non-existence of Zeus (or Thor or Ba'al or Astarte or whatever) can be demonstrated 'indisputably', so can Yahweh/Jehovah, Allah, Vishnu and any other one you care to name.  Whether or not anyone cares is not germane to the point.

What I am saying is that we can't take the same liberties scientists take when explaining science to the layman in our everyday lives.  We expect scientists to take these liberties.  When I'm watching a show on black holes I don't expect that I'm going to learn the real science behind it.  The show would go on for weeks and I would sleep through much of it.  I expect to get the interesting facts about it; some not-quite-as-explained details.  I know that when two scientists are telling me opposing things what they are really saying is that this is their understanding.  I know that because I seek out science information.  I expect them to take some liberties for the purpose of brevity and even give me some not-quite-correct information for the purpose of my general understanding of the concept as a whole.

I'm not sure I would agree that scientists take liberties.  They have to simplify when explaining, but even that is subject to the same qualifications.  The number of times I've heard something along the lines of "Okay, this isn't quite how it works, but..." as the preface for an explanation is a large but still technically finite integer, and I wouldn't describe it as 'not quite correct' so much as I would 'incomplete'.

So what liberties they take are carefully constrained.

So when a scientist says, "This is so" I understand that what he is really saying is, "This is so according to our current understanding".  So, actually, a scientist saying, "There are no gods" is really saying, "I believe..." or "We believe there are no gods according to current understanding".  It is a necessity for scientists to do this because what they have to say is so complex and requires so much specialty knowledge that to not do it would simply cost them, and us, too much in terms of time.  It is not a necessity to us.  The concept that there is no evidence whatsoever to remotely suggest the existence of any deities is not a difficult one.  It took just under 2/3 of the last sentence to fully articulate the entirety of the idea.  That is not a high cost in terms of time or effort.

And in this cast the 'believe' becomes superfluous.  There is nothing logically or scientifically inconsistent with the phrase "there are no gods according to current understanding".

So I'm not saying you can't respect, appreciate or use science.  All I'm saying is that the argument that you can take the same liberties in your everyday life, because you want to, that scientists take in science, out of necessity, is not exactly sound.

I'm really not sure I agree with the 'take liberties' part here.  Science and scientific argument is above all else rigorous.

[Baruch]

Universe ... be definition means nothing is outside of it.  So by definition, and your definition of a god/miracle ... there are no gods/miracles ... because given the definitions, it is nonsense (misuse of vocabulary).  Nature ... by definition means no miracles.  So a god without miracles could exist in nature, and in the universe ... as a kind of superman ... but not as a deity.

To generalize from Nietzsche ... all men are supermen ... keep the kryptonite to yourself.

Is it legitimate to define your words such that the other guy's position is nonsense?

[SGOS]

Is it legitimate to define your words such that the other guy's position is nonsense?

On the surface, no.  But this is a semantic minefield.  Atheists have been accused of mistakenly defining god as having nonsense characteristics, and then rejecting that god for its nonsense, but there are extenuating circumstances involved in this mistake. 

First, like theists who believe in the god they grew up around, atheists don't believe in the god they grew up around.  Both theists and atheists make the same mistake here.  They define god based on local popularity, rather than substance.  Neither defines God on their own, but accepts the popular definition, subject to some personal but usually minor tweaking.  But keep in mind that most God definitions are a product of misguided theism.  Theism is responsible for defining gods.  Atheists mostly react to the definitions, rather than participate in their creations.  Atheism is a reaction to what appears to be a human creation, not a creation of it's own.

So do we say an atheist actually creates the gods he disbelieves, or simply reacts to the creations of theists?  I think there is a strong case to make that atheists simply react, rather than create.  But how much does this matter?  I'm pretty liberal about accepting definitions of gods, although not very liberal about buying into them.  Almost every popular definition of a god employs some aspect of nonsense already built into its particular definition.  The Abrahamic gods have a high degree of nonsense, centered around defying reality, and self contradictory qualities.  The Pantheist gods usually include less, but still some quantity of nonsense about deifying totally neutral, but at least real, qualities.  I think I can legitimately consider this nonsense on the same grounds that the doorknob, as a higher power advocated as training wheels in Alcoholics Anonymous, is utter nonsense.

Now we can quibble over what constitutes 'nonsense' and take the semantics of the argument to the next level of nonsense.  Well, maybe it's just the same argument we were having to begin with?  Yeah, probably.

[widdershins]

Sorry about the delay replying; lots of good meat here to get into, and this may be a long post.
If a miracle is an effect of a deity, it's still an effect upon this universe by something alleged to be outside it.  And that leaves a flat contradiction and one has to choose between spontaneous miracles with no will behind them, or an ineffective external deity who's barred from interfering in reality.

Of course, the so-called will of god is frequently cited in the demonstrably non-miraculous as if it were a miracle, usually in the form of counterfactuals (if god hadn't made me late, I'd've been on that flight that crashed, that sort of thing).  And in the absence of documentation, the MSU (Make Shit Up) principle applies: the Catholic Encyclopedia states in all seriousness, for example that the "estimate that about 4000 cures have been obtained at Lourdes within the first fifty years of the pilgrimage is undoubtedly considerably less than the actual number."  And this in the face of the Vatican's own "verified" number of 69 cures, no more, no less.

Let's take the example of Lourdes, which has has about 200 million visitors since Bernadette Soubirous reported her hallucinations.  As stated, the RCC has "verified" 69 "miracle" cures, but be it 69 or 4000, that's still no better than the known rates of spontaneous remission for various diseases, and not one single one has ever been something indisputably miraculous, like the restoration of a documented lost limb.

And this can be filed as a sort of negative evidence: "My god did this miracle!"  "Well, no, actually what happened was this..."

Negative evidence, yes, but against miracles, not a deity.  What I am saying is that miracles and the deities supposedly producing them are two separate lines of inquiry.

Let me give you an example.  Let's say you have unlimited wealth and ability to travel and spend your life investigating miracles.  In one of your investigations you find that a "miracle" did, in fact, happen.  Someone regrew a missing limb.  It's undeniable.  This happened.  Is that the end of your investigation?  Or do you go on to try to prove the cause?  In all likelihood you wouldn't simply accept the explanation for the miracle given to you; you wouldn't simply assume that the force behind this miracle was whatever the person thought it was.  You would move on to the separate issue of the cause of that miracle.

Even so, if you take miracles out of it, what mechanism remains for an external god to have any effect on the universe?  If one is to be satisfied with a completely external god, then Occam's Razor comes back into play, since that means a self-explaining universe and god is unnecessary.

I sort of agree there.  There is the possibility that the god created the universe and then left it alone.  Certainly a self-explaining universe is far more plausible.  But we can never truly rule out the possibility of divine interference.  All we can really do is say that there is no evidence to support this and no need for it as an explanation.

I think 'hypothesis' is okay to use here, as it was an early human attempt to explain how the world around them worked, and explicitly was in regard to a god's effects on this world.  And I think it fair to say that this explanation has been supplanted by more recent and better observations.

Semantics.  I was being picky, but it's really unimportant.

But maybe the 'god explanation' would be a more accurate phrasing.
If you're going to reduce god to being something completely external with no effect to the observed universe, you may as well say there isn't one since it's been completely exempted from observation.

For the purpose of discovery, I agree.  However you cannot claim this as fact.

What's the difference between Zeus and Yahweh that Zeus is 'disproved' and Yahweh isn't?

Certainly if the non-existence of Zeus (or Thor or Ba'al or Astarte or whatever) can be demonstrated 'indisputably', so can Yahweh/Jehovah, Allah, Vishnu and any other one you care to name.  Whether or not anyone cares is not germane to the point.

Whether Zeus has been "disproved" or simply fallen out of favor is, itself, up for debate.  He certainly wasn't found living on top any mountains anywhere.  But all that really means is that part of the story was wrong.  That's the thing about belief systems.  A believer who really wants to believe can simply pull an explanation out of their asses.  The gods moved.  They are there, but in a different "realm" that we cannot perceive unless they allow it.  They did exist, but they died.  When magic is involved any explanation is plausible, which is why any explanation involving magic should be treated as if it is false until evidence to the contrary is presented.  But treating it as if it is false is not the same as proving it false.

I'm not sure I would agree that scientists take liberties.  They have to simplify when explaining, but even that is subject to the same qualifications.  The number of times I've heard something along the lines of "Okay, this isn't quite how it works, but..." as the preface for an explanation is a large but still technically finite integer, and I wouldn't describe it as 'not quite correct' so much as I would 'incomplete'.

Perhaps "liberties" wasn't the correct word.  I don't think we actually disagree on a technical level here.  I can't remember any specific examples right now, but I have heard scientific explanations for things which I had enough knowledge of to know that what they were saying was not quite correct, but that if they had given accurate information the explanation required would have killed people from Mississippi and Texas.  They do sometimes sacrifice informational accuracy to "dumb it down" and give a rough explanation for things people are interested in.  It's not that they are purposely spreading misinformation, though.  More like sacrificing the accuracy of the details to deliver the general idea.  I guess I do know of one such example.  Many describe the Big Bang as being an "explosion", when in reality it was nothing like an explosion.  In fact, I have heard scientists complain that they hate that explanation because it is not accurate.

So what liberties they take are carefully constrained.
And in this cast the 'believe' becomes superfluous.  There is nothing logically or scientifically inconsistent with the phrase "there are no gods according to current understanding".
I'm really not sure I agree with the 'take liberties' part here.  Science and scientific argument is above all else rigorous.

Again, perhaps "liberties" wasn't the right word there.  I did not mean to infer that they in any way changed the information for personal reasons.  Just that they tend to talk about evolution as if it were a fact rather than take the time to explain each and every time that science does not consider any theory to ever be fact and give the example of the Earth's revolution around the Sun, which is known to be true but is still "theory" and open for debate.

And while I can certainly see the need to do that and find it perfectly acceptable, there is no doubt that this has caused some confusion among the general public, allowing for the rise of "It's just a theory" in the anti-evolution movement.  But science is complicated.  Explaining it to laymen is time consuming.  They do have to "shortcut", if you like that better than "take liberties", on a regular basis.  It is a necessity.  It is not a necessity when discussing the possibility of deities.  The position is not complicated.  There is no time consuming, complex information to relay which would create the need to shortcut and say, "There are no gods" rather than "There has never been any evidence to suggest there are any gods".  No complex data or reasoning lies hidden behind the shortcut.  It's just a shortcut for the sake of either a shortcut or a desire to claim an absolute.  Science doesn't use either of those reasons for using a shortcut.  There is a need for it when explaining scientific principals.  There are some underlying truths which are assumed, at least by the scientific community and any who know enough about it to know what those underlying truths are.

That is why I can't accept a correlation with scientific explanation as a valid reason for simply stating "There are no gods" rather than saying, "I believe there are no gods" or "There is no evidence to support the existence of any gods".  The shortcut isn't that much shorter and there are no assumed underlying truths when you use it.  It is not the same as when scientists do it, so that scientists do it for completely different reasons is not a good argument for doing it, whether you're investigating the possibilities of deities scientifically or not.

So let me ask you this.  What is your reason for wanting to state simply "There are no gods"?  Do you want to make your sentence marginally shorter?  Or are you actually stating an absolute?  Or is it some third reason I had not considered?

[Sal1981]

There is no god. I wholeheartedly think so.

Now, will I say that to a believer of any god and expect them to not make the ridiculous assertion that I should prove a negative stance? They will ask for proof for my negative stance, and my only reply will be in the ballpark of stating that any proof of the supernatural doesn't exist (and by definition can't exist, but that's another discussion entirely).

To better explain my position, as an atheist, I will simply state I have no belief in their particular belief in the supernatural to that believer.

What most believers fail to grasp, in my experience, is because they're reared in it and stymied dissent, that they can't imagine their faith to be false, has made a blind-spot in their reasoning faculties. They have no trouble finding Islam to be false but their own Christianity must be true, since everyone else believes the same thing in their close & nearby environment or whatever faith-based "reasoning" it is built upon.

[trdsf]

So let me ask you this.  What is your reason for wanting to state simply "There are no gods"?  Do you want to make your sentence marginally shorter?  Or are you actually stating an absolute?  Or is it some third reason I had not considered?

Mostly I just want to explore the logic and semantics of the matter.  As it happens, I do think I am entitled to say "there is no god" in precisely the same way that I might say "there is no phlogiston", "there is no aether", or "there is no caloric", or "the universe is not static" on the simple basis that those explanations of the universe (or parts thereof) have been superseded by better ones, and I do assume all the unspoken "...to the best of our current understanding/observations" philosophical baggage that is attached to any claim of fact, at least outside mathematics.

There are three points that I think using the demonstrative phrase rather than the conditional "I believe" makes.

First, I'm of the opinion that one can't simply place things out of the bounds of rigorous inquiry -- declaring it supernatural doesn't mean we can't see if the implications and predictions made by a supernatural explanation actually match what we see in the universe around us.  We can test prayer, and claims of telepathy, and astrology -- and in fact we have.  Prayer is effective only when the subject knows he's being prayed for: to wit, it's a placebo.  Self-proclaimed telepaths can do no better than chance in rigorously designed trials that eliminate eye contact, body language, and other tells.  Astrologers provided with the time and place of an individual's birth cannot accurately identify the personality traits of the individual -- and if you give the same natal information to fifty different astrologers, you will get fifty different answers.

Second, I think the "I believe there is"/"there is" marks one of the dividing lines between agnosticism and atheism.  I would argue that limiting one's self to "I believe there is no god" is simply a harder form of agnosticism rather than actual atheism because it assumes the agnostic position that the answer is ultimately unknowable: á¼€-γνῶσιÏ,, a-gnosis, without knowledge - rather than á¼,,-θεοÏ,, a-theos, without god(s).  I am á¼,,-θεοÏ,, not á¼€-γνῶσιÏ,, and while I accept that I am a limited human being with limited understanding, I do not think that is a valid limitation to put on the overall quest for knowledge.

And the third point is that it elevates belief to being a meaningful position in a debate, and that not only cedes far too much ground to the believers, it also allows them to wiggle out from under the burden of proof ("Well, it's a matter of faith, you'll have to disprove it, I just believe it.")

So I prefer to state my position unequivocally, just so there's no question who should be proving what and who should be the one coming up with the evidence.  It's for the same reason I refer to Christian or Muslim or Hindu mythologies rather than theologies.  You need a god to have a theology, and I won't cede that ground without a damned good reason first.

[widdershins]

Mostly I just want to explore the logic and semantics of the matter.  As it happens, I do think I am entitled to say "there is no god" in precisely the same way that I might say "there is no phlogiston", "there is no aether", or "there is no caloric", or "the universe is not static" on the simple basis that those explanations of the universe (or parts thereof) have been superseded by better ones, and I do assume all the unspoken "...to the best of our current understanding/observations" philosophical baggage that is attached to any claim of fact, at least outside mathematics.

I can certainly see your point there.  It does make sense.  However, I still can't get past you using scientific examples for why you can speak the same way about something non-scientific.  There is a difference between gods and outdated scientific understanding.  Gods aren't scientific and never have been.  The examples you gave are obviously, indisputably ideas put forth by men and disproved by other men.  Their existence or lack thereof is and always has been purely in the realm of human intellect and understanding.  Only on the very surface do they even have anything remotely in common with the concept of deities.  Under the surface the ideas are really nothing alike.  One addresses physical properties, the other the non-physical.  One can be examined by science, the other cannot.

There are three points that I think using the demonstrative phrase rather than the conditional "I believe" makes.

First, I'm of the opinion that one can't simply place things out of the bounds of rigorous inquiry -- declaring it supernatural doesn't mean we can't see if the implications and predictions made by a supernatural explanation actually match what we see in the universe around us.  We can test prayer, and claims of telepathy, and astrology -- and in fact we have.  Prayer is effective only when the subject knows he's being prayed for: to wit, it's a placebo.  Self-proclaimed telepaths can do no better than chance in rigorously designed trials that eliminate eye contact, body language, and other tells.  Astrologers provided with the time and place of an individual's birth cannot accurately identify the personality traits of the individual -- and if you give the same natal information to fifty different astrologers, you will get fifty different answers.

All true.  In fact, I read an article the other day about a kid that went missing.  The parents prayed for her safe return.  They then got news that she was dead.  The mother, I believe, said, "God answered our prayers, it just wasn't the answer we wanted."  No, he didn't.  She didn't pray to get news of her daughter's death.  The "safe" part of her prayer was the part she was stressing.  THAT is what she was praying for.  She was neither safe nor returned.  There was no prayer answered, but she thought there was.

However, I can prove miracle after miracle false and I still haven't taken the first step to proving deities don't exist.  Look at the ID argument, for example.  The every argument of the ID proponent is actually not for ID, it's against evolution.  So there is actually a really easy way to shut them up.  Just tell them to imagine a giant scale.  On one side is the evidence for evolution, on the other side you want them to put the evidence for intelligent design.  Then throw them a curveball and accept that evolution is wrong.  Everything about it is wrong.  You are removing ALL the evidence from the evolution side of the scale.  So all they have to do to prove their point is put ONE PIECE of evidence on the other side and they've proved their point.  They will go through all the arguments in their mind, "...could not have...", "...didn't...", "...not...".  They will find that they don't have a single piece of evidence for ID.  Not one.  On the same note, I accept that there are no miracles, prayer doesn't work, psychics are all bogus, there is no magic, etc.  The side of the scale with the supposed evidence for the existence of deities is swept clean.  The scales are balanced.  Now tip the scale.  Without being able to pile on negative evidence you can't.

Second, I think the "I believe there is"/"there is" marks one of the dividing lines between agnosticism and atheism.  I would argue that limiting one's self to "I believe there is no god" is simply a harder form of agnosticism rather than actual atheism because it assumes the agnostic position that the answer is ultimately unknowable: á¼€-γνῶσιÏ,, a-gnosis, without knowledge - rather than á¼,,-θεοÏ,, a-theos, without god(s).  I am á¼,,-θεοÏ,, not á¼€-γνῶσιÏ,, and while I accept that I am a limited human being with limited understanding, I do not think that is a valid limitation to put on the overall quest for knowledge.

I am certain there are no gods, but I may be wrong.  The universe is vast and it apparently came from somewhere else, which is presumably more vast.  It is, at least currently, unknowable.  I cannot know that there is not some other universe with twice the dimensions this one has where the laws of the universe allows for beings whose thoughts can design and create lesser universes like our own.  We have yet to even reconcile quantum mechanics with general relativity.  It IS unknowable, at least currently.

And the third point is that it elevates belief to being a meaningful position in a debate, and that not only cedes far too much ground to the believers, it also allows them to wiggle out from under the burden of proof ("Well, it's a matter of faith, you'll have to disprove it, I just believe it.")

They will wiggle out from under the burden of proof regardless.  If you make the statement "There are no gods" then you ARE just as burdened as they as you DID just make a claim.  It doesn't matter whether you agree with that or not.  THEY agree with it, so once you make that statement they have no more burden of proof than you do, at least in their minds.

I just had a though, I think a semantics thing may actually reconcile our positions.  I would be okay with, "There is no evidence for any gods" or "There is no reason to believe gods exist" or, what I often say, "The only reason you have for believing is because somebody says so."  Anything that is not a claim of an absolute truth and, actually, may more accurately state your position.

So I prefer to state my position unequivocally, just so there's no question who should be proving what and who should be the one coming up with the evidence.  It's for the same reason I refer to Christian or Muslim or Hindu mythologies rather than theologies.  You need a god to have a theology, and I won't cede that ground without a damned good reason first.

But in stating your position like this you are CREATING confusion over who should be proving what.  Hell, it has come up here before.  The MOMENT you state "There are no gods" they start saying, "Ha!  You just made a claim!  Now YOU have to prove it!"  And they're right.  You did and you do.  Saying that there are no gods is every bit as much a claim as saying that there are one or more gods.  If you say the electron exists and I say it doesn't would you feel compelled to prove that it does or would you ask me for my evidence that it doesn't?  Since it is commonly accepted that it does you should be asking me to prove my point as yours is already made by science, EVEN THOUGH I was making the "not" claim.

There are no gods.  I am sure of that.  And I can safely say that in like-minded company.  But why would I say that to Christians?  To pick a fight.  To piss them off.  To irritate them.  To disrespect them.  Every reason I can think of has more to do with emotional rather than logical arguments.  And ultimately it IS unknowable.  The ONLY way that it could POSSIBLY be knowable is if our position is wrong and either a god makes itself known or we were gods capable of knowing.  You should celebrate that it's unknowable.  If it weren't, you'd be wrong.  It's precisely because you're not wrong that actually makes it unknowable.

[trdsf]

They will wiggle out from under the burden of proof regardless.  If you make the statement "There are no gods" then you ARE just as burdened as they as you DID just make a claim.  It doesn't matter whether you agree with that or not.  THEY agree with it, so once you make that statement they have no more burden of proof than you do, at least in their minds.

I would argue that the 'no god' position should be the default setting: it simply states that the universe is what it is without an additional hidden supernatural layer to it.  That strikes me as very nearly axiomatic; it's a simple acceptance of that which is revealed by observations and not positing anything unknown, unless its existence is implied by the observations (dark matter and dark energy come to mind, for example).

And I don't need to prove there's nothing further.  As soon as someone says "And there's also this", that requires evidence, and my gainsaying that doesn't shift that requirement to me.  I don't need to demonstrate that I cannot see what I have not seen -- that too is axiomatic, I think.  And I can't say to you, "There's intelligent life on the other side of the galaxy -- prove there isn't or I'm right!" -- this is the false game that believers play, and that they must not be allowed to play.  As soon as I make that positive claim, it's my responsibility to prove they're there, or retract or modify my claim.  This is essentially the same as your example of the scales, really.

So if someone wants to make the 'god exists' claim, without evidence on their part, I have no reason nor even responsibility to take that position seriously, nor to disprove it.  Without evidence, it's a null statement and not warranted by the available observations.

I just had a though, I think a semantics thing may actually reconcile our positions.  I would be okay with, "There is no evidence for any gods" or "There is no reason to believe gods exist" or, what I often say, "The only reason you have for believing is because somebody says so."  Anything that is not a claim of an absolute truth and, actually, may more accurately state your position.

And I kind of mentally subsume those in the shorter statement -- these are much more accurate, of course, and probably I should make an effort to move in these directions.

I did once have occasion to, actually -- I was visiting friends for the weekend, and their daughter and son-in-law dropped by.  As it happened, a program with Stephen Hawking was on, and the son-in-law commented (rather snottily, in fact), "How can he be that smart and not believe in god?"  To which I, with remarkable restraint (at least I think I was restrained), replied (okay, maybe a little acidly), "Because there's no physical evidence."

And the matter, happily, dropped there.

[widdershins]

I would argue that the 'no god' position should be the default setting: it simply states that the universe is what it is without an additional hidden supernatural layer to it.  That strikes me as very nearly axiomatic; it's a simple acceptance of that which is revealed by observations and not positing anything unknown, unless its existence is implied by the observations (dark matter and dark energy come to mind, for example).

My problem with that is that theists always assume that their position is the default position.  It's something I realized years ago with the argument that not teaching anything about religion in schools, either for or against, was "by default" teaching that atheism is correct.  I noticed it rearing its ugly head again in Intelligent Design arguments composed of nothing but "negative evidence" against evolution.  The idea is that if the other side cannot produce evidence that you will accept or cannot give an alternative explanation that you accept, you win by default.  Of course you will never accept any evidence they present because you don't see it the same way they do.

The problem is that in any debate you have to start with several facts which both sides agree on.  You have to have a starting point.  Some simple examples in a debate with a theist would be that the universe exists and that it has not existed in its current form for an eternity.  Those are very basic, but each debate is different with each side willing to start with an acceptance of various facts.  That one position or the other should be the "default" position is a premise of the argument neither side is likely to accept from the other.  What that means is that by making this a premise of your argument you are setting up your argument to fail to have any effect (if the intention of your argument is to sway the other person, that is).  So what is the point of making the argument?  Do you just want to piss the theist off?  Then it's a great argument.  Do you want to have an intelligent debate, already a problem when debating theists?  That's not any more likely to happen by setting a default in your favor than it is when they try to set a default in their favor.  What's more, as an argument style, it's utterly dishonest.  It's "cheating" and it's lazy.  You're setting up the argument so that you never actually have to do any work to prove any point, only shoot down anything that comes at you.  In this case you, and theists arguing the same, are making the argument "The default is that I am right and if you can't prove I'm not then I win".  You wouldn't accept that as a valid premise from them.  Why should you expect them to accept it from you?

And I don't need to prove there's nothing further.  As soon as someone says "And there's also this", that requires evidence, and my gainsaying that doesn't shift that requirement to me.  I don't need to demonstrate that I cannot see what I have not seen -- that too is axiomatic, I think.  And I can't say to you, "There's intelligent life on the other side of the galaxy -- prove there isn't or I'm right!" -- this is the false game that believers play, and that they must not be allowed to play.  As soon as I make that positive claim, it's my responsibility to prove they're there, or retract or modify my claim.  This is essentially the same as your example of the scales, really.

I agree with all of that.  However, in this case the claim would be, "There is no intelligent life on the other side of the galaxy -- prove there is or I'm right!"  By adding that single word and making it a negative am I then allowed that claim?  Is this valid because I do not need to demonstrate that I cannot see what I have not seen?  Of course not.  In this case EITHER claim would be either spectacularly ignorant or fantastically informed.

So if someone wants to make the 'god exists' claim, without evidence on their part, I have no reason nor even responsibility to take that position seriously, nor to disprove it.  Without evidence, it's a null statement and not warranted by the available observations.
And I kind of mentally subsume those in the shorter statement -- these are much more accurate, of course, and probably I should make an effort to move in these directions.

I agree wholeheartedly.  I have looked into many, many claims of the supernatural variety.  I have spent years of my life looking into Christianity, alone.  Years more looking into ghosts, magic, UFOs, etc.  Never have I seen the slightest evidence to suggest there was anything to any such claims.  I now do dismiss them outright.  If you don't have proof, you are wrong.  And I do often claim that there is no such thing as magic, which, when you get down to it, is really no different than claiming outright there are no gods.  So it's not like I am not, myself, guilty of doing exactly what I am arguing against here.  The fact that "magic" is less accepted as a reality is no excuse for allowing myself more latitude.  But to be fair, when I make the claim that there is no such thing as magic, I am usually referring to what theists prefer I call "miracles".  In this case I am very much taking a jab.  I'm not debating a position and my intention is not to sway, my intention is to annoy.  So I guess, in that sense, if your intention is to annoy rather than sway, saying "There are no gods" is no different.

I did once have occasion to, actually -- I was visiting friends for the weekend, and their daughter and son-in-law dropped by.  As it happened, a program with Stephen Hawking was on, and the son-in-law commented (rather snottily, in fact), "How can he be that smart and not believe in god?"  To which I, with remarkable restraint (at least I think I was restrained), replied (okay, maybe a little acidly), "Because there's no physical evidence."

And the matter, happily, dropped there.

Isn't it funny how they immediately get all indignant and pissed off if you don't see the world as they do?  It amuses me that the quickest way to get a theist pissed at you is not to elude to a sexual encounter with his mother, it's to express different religious beliefs.  Although it is entertaining to end the former with, "Call me Daddy" or "Now get Daddy a beer".  I like the second one best.

[Solomon Zorn]

Two questions seem essential:
1. What's your definition of the "God" that you claim.
2. What's your evidence of the god that you claim.

[Baruch]

Two questions seem essential:
1. What's your definition of the "God" that you claim.
2. What's your evidence of the god that you claim.

Adding .... common error engaged in by supposedly rational people ... If A, then B ... turns out B is true, therefor A must be true.  This is a fallacy.  There could also be a ... If C, then B ... in which case we don't know if it is A or C is true ... or both, or some other letter or combination entirely.

To give an example ...
If no gods, then no miracles ... turns out there are no miracles ... therefor can we conclude that there are no gods?

A correct deduction would be ... turns out there are miracles ... therefor we can conclude that there are no no gods aka there are gods

[widdershins]

Adding .... common error engaged in by supposedly rational people ... If A, then B ... turns out B is true, therefor A must be true.  This is a fallacy.  There could also be a ... If C, then B ... in which case we don't know if it is A or C is true ... or both, or some other letter or combination entirely.

To give an example ...
If no gods, then no miracles ... turns out there are no miracles ... therefor can we conclude that there are no gods?

A correct deduction would be ... turns out there are miracles ... therefor we can conclude that there are no no gods aka there are gods

That's confusing.  And a "miracle" is just magic by another name.  One decides whether a particular act of magic is miraculous by one's own definition.  Based on the first definition that came up a miracle is really nothing more than magic which has some benefit and is therefore attributed to a deity.  If a large pile of money simply appeared before me and I were a religious man I would certainly attribute that to my deity and it would be proof of "miracles" because it cannot be explained by natural means.  Unfortunately our understanding of the natural universe is not complete.  Maybe you are way, way smart and figured out a way to make a teleport device and sent me that money in exchange for sex, but forgot to tell me.  In case that's ever an issue (I'm pretty sure you're a guy, as am I), I don't swing that way, but for enough money I might be persuaded.  But no anal.  I won't even do that with my wife.

But, since we humans decide what and what is not a "miracle" then we even your "correct deduction" may not be correct.  The issues of gods and miracles are different issues entirely.  If you prove miracles you still haven't proved either any particular god or gods in general.  You've only proved that some form of magic is apparently real.  Even that is subject to doubt until the process is at least partially understood and we can know for certain that there wasn't some "natural cause".  If we make that determination then we have proved it to be "supernatural".  If I prayed for money in secret and then got the exact amount I had prayed for I would certainly attribute it to my particular deity, but that doesn't necessarily mean that was the cause of the magic.  Maybe it was a genie.  Maybe I had accidentally caught a leprechaun and he granted my wish to gain his freedom without ever making contact with me.  Maybe it wasn't a god at all, but something else altogether.  Something powerful, to be sure, but not necessarily divine.

This is why I say that you cannot prove nor disprove the existence of any deities by proving or disproving miracles alone.  They are two separate issues.  Maybe God is on Social Security now and if he does miracles today he'd have to claim it as some kind of spiritual income, which would fuck up his check.  He's God.  It's not like he's going to cheat the government and at his age his medicines must be, if you'll pardon the term, ungodly expensive.  So maybe there is some deity, even a particular one and he just doesn't do miracles.  So the correct deduction would actually be, "turns out there are no miracles...I wonder if there are any gods?"

[Baruch]

If we aren't talking logic, how are we speaking of proof?  Empirical demonstration is different (especially is defined broadly rather than "current philosophy of science).  I wasn't saying that we can claim any miracles ... I was only looking at the common fallacy.

An example of the other vali form of reasoning ...
If A, then B ... turns out A is true ... then we can conclude B is true.

To give an example ...
If gods, then miracles ... turns out there are gods .. therefore we can conclude that there are miracles.

This doesn't touch on whether the syllogism is correct per empirical demonstration ... perfect logic produces perfect falsehood, if the axioms are false (either the conditional or the affirmation of the prior of the denial of the posterior.

Don't try to deny my posterior, I can prove it is real ;-)