(Let me know if you're having trouble with the new Disqus comments and PLEASE use the Reply button)
Forget Bible criticism, forget philosophy, forget arguments AGAINST Judaism. I might have been approaching all of this completely wrong. I've been focusing on the peripheral issues and missing the big picture. We need to ask "prove it!" Let's begin by talking about the burden of proof (BOP).
Now BOP arguments often become silly and are usually not useful in a scientific or historical discussions. But in the case of religion vs. skepticism we absolutely need to establish who the BOP is on. Our options:
1. There are two sides to the argument and the BOP is on both sides
2. The BOP is on skepticism
3. The BOP is on religion
How do we decide? What is the rule (if any) that determines who the BOP is on? Let's discuss generalities first and then move onto the question at hand.
I'm sure right now some believer is smiling at my naivete. BOP on theism!? Don't I know that religion has been around for much longer than atheism. Stupid Shilton! Atheism, and Deism are the innovations. When someone says "I'm an atheist" S/He is surely like someone coming out of nowhere and saying Rav Elyashiv is the Mashiach! The BOP is on the innovative new atheism of the modern era!
This is faulty thinking and let me explain why. Atheism is indeed, relatively speaking a novel idea, however determining the BOP has nothing to do with comparing the ages of two contending ideas. It also has nothing to do with established norms or accepted ideas. The BOP does not follow chronology and does not care who came up with what first and how long people have been doing various things. To determine the BOP we must take two ideas forget the histories and biases behind each one and ask "Which one is making a positive assertion and which one is not." The BOP always lies on the unproven positive assertion NOT on the unproven negative assertion.
Positive assertions are the ones which must be proven. So take rain for example. The belief in the existence of rain is a positive assertion. You can't just assume it rains. You need to base it on something you need some sort of proof. In short the BOP initially is always on the person who wants to demonstrate the existence of rain. How do you prove it? Well you explain how many people have seen rain (including yourself), and how it is well documented, and how millions of independent sources from people who never met each other all make mention of it. Just a side point: Once you've proven rain then the BOP is obviously shifted, and it is then that the proof must be borne by the iconoclast who wishes to bring the reality of rain into question.
We start off knowing absolutely nothing and the BOP lies on everything, however once a proof or a well reasoned argument has been offered the BOP is on those who wish to now change things.
So back to religion. Religion is still stuck in the initial stages of doubt. It has never gotten off the ground. Initially at the beginning of a logical inquiry religion, rain, cars, keyboards, cats, physics, and Coca Cola are all in doubt and the BOP is on s/he who wants to prove them. The problem is religion fell behind in the race. We can reasonably prove the existence of rain, cats, cars, keyboards, physics and Coca Cola. Obviously it's not so easy (probably impossible) to escape a Cartesian doubt or prove we're not brains in jars but we can prove that in our world, whether that world be real or imaginary, that Coca Cola exists. But religion? Can you prove religion in the same way you can prove Coca Cola? Hell forget Coke! Can you prove religion in the same way you can prove the Earth is round?
It's not a specific bias against religion it's a requirement on EVERYTHING! Nothing is known 'till proven or demonstrated adequately. That's all skepticism is - requiring every positive assertion in the world - no exceptions - to prove itself. The Burden of proof is on Coke just a much as religion - the only difference is most things have overcome the challenge and fulfilled their duty of bearing the proof. Religion has for the most part failed and now would desperately like to be granted a special epistemological immunity just because it's really old and respected. Well no can do - stick to faith.
Skepticism is a negative assertion and says "I'll believe it when I see it" It needs not prove anything because it's not saying anything. It's just saying I don't believe in pink unicorns, religion, fairies, an afterlife, UFO's, and magic NOT because these things are impossible, but rather just because nobody can give me any reason WHY to believe in these things. When a skeptic makes a positive assertion then indeed s/he needs to cough up some proof or argument but denying religion in general is not a positive assertion.
If a real proof or argument for God in general, and Judaism in particular popped up then the skeptics would have to logically change their position and could no longer "hide" behind the Burden of Proof. Since that has not happened yet (AFAIK) and all Judaism has going for it are a bunch of pseudo-proofs which are opiates for the gullible masses , the skeptics still have the high ground.
Posts
89 comments:
Testing 1 2 3
Correct. Think about this in a court setting. Does one need to prove he is not a murderer or does the prosecution needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is? But this relies on how we define atheism. If atheism means "there is no God," then philosophically speaking, the burden of proof falls on both of them since they are making an absolute claim. However if one defines as I do, that there is no reason to think there is a God, then the burden of proof is obviously on the theist.
Hmm, it says there are 4 comments, but I can only find 2 of them. Anyway, I agree 100% with your conclusion, but I'm not sure I can assent to your reasoning. Is it always so easy to distinguish a positive claim from a negative? Plus, how about this - if we're standing outside getting soaked, and I say it's raining and you say it isn't, it seems to me that properly, the BOP falls on you. In short, I don't think positive/negative is always the right dichotomy - I'd say the dichotomy is simply ordinary/extraordinary claim. Due to OR, they tend to overlap in almost all cases, though.
>Is it always so easy to distinguish a positive claim from a negative?
I think so. When would things get blurry?
>Plus, how about this - if we're standing outside getting soaked, and I say it's raining and you say it isn't, it seems to me that properly, the BOP falls on you.
That's why I qualified my statement by explaining that the burden of proof SHIFTS. If we're getting soaked I've successfully borne my proof and now it's your turn.
>I'd say the dichotomy is simply ordinary/extraordinary claim.
Well I think "extraordinary" is a little too much of a value judgment to be an effective way of differentiating.
I am gonna go ahead and agree with Philo, but tentatively.
>Plus, how about this - if we're standing outside getting soaked, and I say it's raining and you say it isn't, it seems to me that properly, the BOP falls on you.
The burden of proof is always on the one making a positive claim. The conversation would go something like this:
Bob: It’s raining.
Jane: No it’s not.
Bob: There are clouds in the sky, droplets of water are falling through the air, and I, along with everything else I can see, is getting wet. All of these are consistent with my assertion that it’s raining.
Jane: No, it’s not raining.
Bob: So how do you account for clouds and falling water droplets?
Jane: I don’t know, but it’s not rain.
Bob: So it’s something that looks exactly like rain, but isn’t rain?
Jane: Yes.
Bob: Prove it.
You see, by the end of the conversation Jane is making a positive claim – that there is something that looks exactly like rain, but isn’t rain.
The problem when it comes to religion is that the conversation is much more complex. The rain example is simple because everyone agrees to a simple definition of rain, everyone experiences rain in the same way, and it is very obvious that water does in fact fall from the sky. There is no such simple definition of God, nor is His existence or non-existence as obvious as whether or not it’s raining.
>The problem when it comes to religion is that the conversation is much more complex.
True but my illustration was to merely show the BOP is indeed on religion (no matter which definition you use)because it is a positive assertion, and not on skepticism which is a completely negative assertion.
"Atheism is indeed, relatively speaking a novel idea, however determining the BOP has nothing to do with comparing the ages of two contending ideas.":
No, it is not. Atheism and Deism for that matter was a position taken by the Greek philosophers such as Aristotle, Plato, Epicurus (the name "Opikorus" comes from him), Democritus and so forth. Besides human species is about 200000 years old. In our earlier primitive days as hunter-gathers before we developed religion we were atheists by default. Therefore atheism preceeds religion, however, atheism was not very popular. In those says saying "I am an atheist" was equivalent of saying, "I am a child-molesting neo-Nazi" today.
The Rambam was as close to a Deist as you can get within the Jewish Framework. Believing in his kind of god is easy in modern times. As I understand his position, all you need to believe is that there was a beginning to creation and there was a first cause (not a infinite regress.) Many modern cosmologist based n the big bang theory support his assertion.I would say he burden of proof would b on those who deny it. Prophecy, on he other hand, is another matter all together
Nope Rambam believed in God's active will (despite it being a positive attribute) and God's hashgacha on man.
Also to the Rambam creation ex nihilo has an important religious significance in that it makes God superior to the laws of nature thus allowing him to "break nature" for things like mass revelations.
I would hardly call the Rambam a deist. Half of Moreh Nevuchim is trying to reconcile Aristotle's Deism with Jewish Theism and he is forced to make certain concessions to Monotheism.
well, I need to brush up on the Moreh, but, the only concessions that Rambam is forced to make regarding creation is ex nihilo. Which, despite, being absurd on face value, seems to be more scientific in the modern sense. Regarding to prophesy and revelation, I agree Ramabam seems to want to have it both ways. But i don't think Rambam believed that God breaks the rules of nature, rather, IIRC, God sets up the rules of nature before which includes the miracles and revaluation to occur on schedule. I admit I have not studied his works in a while so i could be distorting his views.
The burden of proof argument, which has been made many many times has some merit as a rhetorical tool in trying to win an argument with a fundamentalist. In other words, it is much to make the case against someone Else's idea than to argue one for yourself. Of course if someone makes the assertion that "there definitely is a God" one might say in response "prove it". However, that would not get to the heart of the issue.
The real challenge is as follows. A neutral observer asks the question "How did the universe come into being" and each person needs to come up with their own cogent argument. I would submit that the answers (whatever they are) will without exception be unprovable assertions.
I disagree i think the burden of proof is something which must be considered from a logical point of view not just as a debating "tool".
>However, that would not get to the heart of the issue.
Which is? Most religions are internally consistent (and often consistent with the world too with a few apologetics). Every religion has answers to its questions. We think those answers are pretty corny but that surely is a value judgment. Surely we need a better objection to fundies than "Well that's just a kvetch"
"Which is? Most religions are internally consistent (and often consistent with the world too with a few apologetics). Every religion has answers to its questions. We think those answers are pretty corny but that surely is a value judgment. Surely we need a better objection to fundies than "Well that's just a kvetch" "
Which is did the world come into being randomly or is there an intelligent creator. Is there a metaphysical purpose to life or is it just meaningless.
Those are the important questions. Specific religions are just records of mans attempts to answer those questions. Ultimately, the argument about whether specific religions have "the answer" is less important than the idea that there is AN answer.
Well I could argue that the BOP is on purposeful, metaphysical world because random world is just a negative assertion and default while purposeful world is a positive assertion.
(Unless of course purposeful metaphysical world is better at explaining reality which would shift the BOP)
Well I could argue that the BOP is on purposeful, metaphysical world because random world is just a negative assertion and default while purposeful world is a positive assertion.
(Unless of course purposeful metaphysical world is better at explaining reality which would shift the BOP)
I don't think you can posit the random world as the default without creating a postulate. That that is the core of the issue.
If we knew nothing about the universe then it would be just as likely to say somehow the universe was created randomly. But that's not the case. we do know about the universe. we see that it has order and we want to know how/why this order came to be. That's the situation we find our self in. If someone wants to assert that order came from randomness then that is a pretty remarkable assertion don't you think? You would have to explain how this happened and what the mechanics are.
I personally think the physical substance and the laws of nature came to exist all at once from nothing and can not likely be explained from any physical theory.
Puzzled is right in a certain way. It makes no difference whether the claim is positive or negative, as long as their is an absolute claim, the burden of proof falls on it.
I think the distinction Puzzled made was between ordinary and extraordinary which I think is too much of a value judgment. (maybe an absolute claim is extraordinary)
You're distinguishing between absolute and non-absolute which is ok except an Orthodox apologist will just say " I'm not saying I'm 100% sure but I would give it a 90% etc. chance."
I can only while in school and busy reply intermittently but here goes my first comment for the day. I will hopefully reply to all comments that had been put to me.
Positive statement:Reality is real. Negative statement:Reality is an illusion
Positive statement:Consciousness is real. Negative statement:Consciousness is an illusion
According to you the burden of proof should then be on the above positive statements only.
"But religion? Can you prove religion in the same way you can prove Coca Cola? Hell forget Coke! Can you prove religion in the same way you can prove the Earth is round?"
Can you prove that gravity is the bending of spacetime in the same way you can prove Coca Cola? Can you prove that we are made of particles that are also waves, two states that contradict one another in the same way you can prove Coca Cola? Can you prove that there is a multitude of universes as some claim in the same way you can prove Coca Cola? He'll can you prove most scientific theories in the same way you can prove Coca Cola? The result is much of modern science and what scientists consider are out the window if we follow you. Religion doesn't stand a chance and neither does the existence of ethics or morality have a chance of being postulated. After all can you prove the existence of ethics or morality in the same way you can prove Coca Cola.
What you are doing is paying lip service to giving religion a chance to prove itself but really you are ruling it out automatically. That is a claim and needs to be proven. You demand of the religious high proof and for your position you make it true by definition rather than have to consider seriously if you are right.
"Skepticism is a negative assertion and says "I'll believe it when I see it" It needs not prove anything because it's not saying anything. It's just saying I don't believe in pink unicorns, religion, fairies, an afterlife, UFO's, and magic NOT because these things are impossible, but rather just because nobody can give me any reason WHY to believe in these things."
Not knowing if something is true is not denying them. Further if you claim that every possible piece of evidence has been eliminated you are no longer not making a definite claim. You do have to prove that your negative judgment is correct. Even one rejection of a piece of evidence for a claim is also a claim and must be justified. As I wrote to Puzzled:"An idea whether positive or negative is always making a statement that needs to be proven. If I say there is a God it doesn't help to counter me to establish that there is no God if you can't give a good argument that the absence of evidence of God is proof that there is no God. By the way I happen to believe that if there is no proof (good enough for my own mind naturally) for a positive belief the negative belief is then true."
"The burden of proof is always on the one making a positive claim. The conversation would go something like this:
Bob: It’s raining.
Jane: No it’s not.
Bob: There are clouds in the sky, droplets of water are falling through the air, and I, along with everything else I can see, is getting wet. All of these are consistent with my assertion that it’s raining.
Jane: No, it’s not raining.
Bob: So how do you account for clouds and falling water droplets?
Jane: I don’t know, but it’s not rain.
Bob: So it’s something that looks exactly like rain, but isn’t rain?
Jane: Yes.
Bob: Prove it.
You see, by the end of the conversation Jane is making a positive claim – that there is something that looks exactly like rain, but isn’t rain."
That is only assuming that Jane would go that far. But assuming that happens you now have two positive claims. That raises an interesting situation because neither statement would be negative so you would be saying there is no burden of proof here.
>Positive statement:Reality is real. Negative statement:Reality is an illusion
No. Negative statement: who knows?
>According to you the burden of proof should then be on the above positive statements only.
Um... so?
>The result is much of modern science and what scientists consider are out the window if we follow you.
I'm not asking for absolute proof, I'm merely asking for demonstration and adequate evidence. Religion has neither.
>What you are doing is paying lip service to giving religion a chance to prove itself but really you are ruling it out automatically.
My supposed motivations are irrelevant. Deal with the logic. I don't consider ANYTHING above skepticism. Science has to behave just as much as religion.
>Further if you claim that every possible piece of evidence has been eliminated you are no longer not making a definite claim. You do have to prove that your negative judgment is correct.
Every piece of evidence I KNOW OF. And yes, a GOOD argument has to be knocked down. Why do you assume I can't knock down all your theist/Jewish arguments? Try me.
>But assuming that happens you now have two positive claims.
When you have two positive statements such as "The Greeks wore togas vs. the Greeks wore pants" Both sides have to bring evidence. And cannot resort to BOP.
But he will have to show why he thinks there is a 90% chance.
> The BOP always lies on the unproven positive assertion NOT on the unproven negative assertion.
Completely incorrect. Philo's example is completely relevant. In the British legal tradition (which the American system derives from), one is innocent until proven guilty. However, that is not an universal standard. In the French system, the Napoleonic code, one is guilty until proven innocent and the burden of proof is on the accused, not the state. Therefore your initial statement is completely meaningless.
To use your example about rain, Shilton, I absolutely don't have to prove it IS raining outside. In fact, it all depends on why I care in the first place. If I want to take my car to the local carwash, then I have to prove it ISN'T raining. If I don't want to take my kids to the park, I have to prove it IS. There is no universal requirement one way or another.
So if religion of one kind or another is the established system, the BoP is on the atheist if he wants to convince me to abandon my established belief set.
... because the burden of proof is on him/her because s/he is making a positive assertion
I don't care what the bloody French do, we're discussing logic not legal proceedings. Logic is universal, logic is objective.
When I discuss obligations of proof I don't mean an obligation in the legal or societal sense. I mean an obligation in the logical sense. So your analogies to car washes and kids in the park are irrelevant because those are societal/social/circumstantial obligations of evidence. Proving the existence of rain FROM A LOGICAL STANDPOINT has nothing at all to do with the what rain means to me or you.
>So if religion of one kind or another is the established system, the BoP is on the atheist if he wants to convince me to abandon my established belief set.
Once again, yes, I suppose when discussing society and government we might need to give more authority to the established system (maybe). But we're discussing LOGIC, pure simple logic.
Garnel, think about what you're saying for one moment. First, as Shilton notes, your examples are truly irrelevant. Whether or not rain exists is not dependent on what you want to do. (You'll notice Shilton discussed the existence of rain in the post, not whether it is raining now--you switched that around). Either rain exists or not. Either cows exist or not. Either Lincoln was president or not. Either the Torah was dictated by God or not. If you say the answer to any of these is "yes," you need to have a reason by which you can back it up.
There have been myriads of established belief systems in the world, most of which were kinda nuts or at least very wrong. Zeus et al was a well established system. But you don't need to prove to anyone that Hermes doesn't exist, or that the first willow tree was not, in fact, a woman named Daphne chased by Apollo. I promise--you don't need to prove it, because there's no reason anyone should believe it in the first place. Your beliefs are not somehow special and protected just because you hold them--which is what your claim amounts to. If you make a positive claim, you back it up, just as Shilton wrote.
RG, you're picking scientific examples that cannot be observed by the naked eye and saying they would be invalidated by what Shilton is suggesting. That's false, though. Positivism does not demand that you only admit as real what you can see; it's about the combined use of experience and evidence. Experimental data show wave/particle duality in a way that forces anyone who looks at the results to accept it. Science uses experiments to observe what the naked eye cannot, and if you understand what was done, you accept that the results must be true.
In contrast, show me an experiment that has found a religious fact that cannot be seen with the naked eye, and you'll have a comparison. Science is fine with positivism; more than that, science is based on it.
> But assuming that happens you now have two positive claims. That raises an interesting situation because neither statement would be negative so you would be saying there is no burden of proof here.
No, two positive claims don’t cancel each other. Instead, both sides must bring proof, and we should go with the side that has better evidence. Bob has shown that the data is consistent with the fact it is raining. Jane has made a claim that despite this, it is in fact not raining, but something else is going on. Until Jane provides evidence for her assertion, I would agree with Bob that it’s raining. If Jane points out that they are standing under a sprinkler and the water is not coming from the clouds, then she has met her burden of proof and provided a better explanation based on additional data (the sprinkler) that Bob wasn’t addressing.
> we do know about the universe. we see that it has order
Does it really? Or is it that if you look at a tiny subset of a random sequence, there is often an appearance of order.
True, this position is clear in the Rambam's peirush on Pirkei Avos.
The concept doesn't apply to liberal religion, which is not based on assertions of absolute truth.
This is an important point, because I hate to see the fundies hog the term "religion" all to themselves, until every one buys it, even the people who oppose them.
And what is it based on?
I think the only basis for religion can be pure faith, which I'm totally fine with, as long as it does not attempt to overstep it's boundaries and make statements about empirical reality or morality.
Just for your information, I can't seem to access the comments at work :(
Oh dear. What browser are you using? Keep me updated.
I think disqus is blocked as social networking while blogging is categorized under blogs/wikis (which is blocked for most people but unblocked for me at least).
Shilton HaSechel [Moderator] 22 hours ago in reply to Rabban Gamliel
>Positive statement:Reality is real. Negative statement:Reality is an illusion
Testing post here, if not then below.
Okay listen up RG I'm only gonna say this one more time so pay special attention k?:
I don't think we can never know. All I'm saying is RIGHT NOW we happen to not know. So for God's sake stop repeating the same refrain of "Well you're making a positive statement of we can't know!" No! I'm not saying that and no one besides you is. So write these words on the tablet of your heart and REMEMBER so I don't have to keep repeating my self. Thank you.
>So then you are saying with your coke level test that reality in all probability is an illusion and so is consciousness indeed that they are an illusion since they can
never pass the coke test.
Read some philosophy (Kant and Hume would be good for you) and then come back to me.
Reality could be an illusion and there is no way of absolutely proving otherwise. I can accept that as can most philosophers. Science describes our observations (and inferences from those observations) Are those observations the real world or not? Doesn't really matter. Science is not the description of things-themselves but rather things-as-they-appear-to-us.
>Ok answer all of my answers to your list of contradictions in the Torah.
Those have nothing to do with the present argument. Bring proofs FOR Judaism instead of knocking down arguments AGAINST Judaism.
I learned about Kant and Hume in philosophy class. Neither they nor at least most philosophers claim not to know if reality is real or not.
"Reality could be an illusion and there is no way of absolutely proving otherwise."
To your own satisfaction you can. Scientists deal with the question. Of course you can still have reality be real for science and still you can't prove it to the satisfaction of say philosophy.
>Neither they nor at least most philosophers claim not to know if reality is real or not.
They claim that we don't know if the reality we see is the same as the REAL reality. (Kant's thing-in-itself)
>Scientists deal with the question.
Oh do they now. Do tell.
>Of course you can still have reality be real for science and still you can't prove it to the satisfaction of say philosophy.
Um.. yeah that's what I said.
Ok if you claim God is an open question you have to come up with a criterion for what could be shown to you to prove the existence of God? If you can't you would not be able to say one way or the other about probability if you claim to have it as an open question.
"I don't think we can never know. All I'm saying is RIGHT NOW we happen to not know."
Well if you would claim to know in the future that would be a positive assertion that would also have the burden of proof. That would contradict your statement:"Skepticism is a negative assertion and says "I'll believe it when I see it" It needs not prove anything because it's not saying anything."
Like I said about God to you above would apply to Judaism:"Ok if you claim God is an open question you have to come up with a criterion for what could be shown to you to prove the existence of God? If you can't you would not be able to say one way or the other about probability if you claim to have it as an open question."
You said "Why do you assume I can't knock down all your theist/Jewish arguments? Try me."
I therefore said answer all my answers to your challenge. Clearly if Judaism is to be proved it has to address challenges to it. So I did so answer me back. Frankly if the Torah is a unified document it would be an uncomfortable challenge to skepticism because a motivation for DH was to explain in natural form the origin of Judaism's mores and ideas. So if you say you don't need to address my answers fine but you leave your position vulnerable.
>Ok if you claim God is an open question you have to come up with a criterion for what could be shown to you to prove the existence of God?
No I don't. Do I have to come up with the criterion for proving Santa Claus or wood fairies and then only THEN say "well there is no evidence"? Either way could be God is inherently unprovable. Doesn't make him any more real just because it might be inherently impossible to prove his existence.
>Well if you would claim to know in the future that would be a positive assertion that would also have the burden of proof.
When did I claim that? Stop putting words in my mouth in an attempt to show I'm making a positive assertion. Could be we'll never know. Could be we will know. I have no idea (nor does anyone) The keyword here is "I don't know"
"It is difficult to predict the future"
>I therefore said answer all my answers to your challenge.
You're not paying attention. I don't need to answer your questions to my challenge to say that there is no proof for Judaism in the first place. Once again Burden of Proof is on you. The discussion of the Torah is a completely different discussion.
>Clearly if Judaism is to be proved it has to address challenges to it.
Fine we'll assume for argument's sake that composite authorship is out of the question. Now go and prove Judaism.
>Frankly if the Torah is a unified document it would be an uncomfortable challenge to skepticism because a motivation for DH was to explain in natural form the origin of Judaism's mores and ideas.
Motivation has nothing to do with logic.
>So if you say you don't need to address my answers fine but you leave your position vulnerable.
I'm not vulnerable because the BoP is not on me. If I wanted to prove the DH then the BoP is indeed on me. But I'm not trying to prove the DH in this thread so this is all irrelevant to the general question IN THIS THREAD of what proof Judaism has given the BoP is on it.
I am utterly confused at what you are looking for. It seems to me that even if I were to claim that George Washington Lived in the 18th century you would not believe it, because you could claim we are in the matrix and nothing is real. Or because he is not tangible and in front of you.
How exactly would you want someone to prove their point of view or the facts they say in ANY situation?
I would say we know George Washington exists ASSUMING that we don't live in the matrix and ASSUMING that our empirical observations are meaningful. God/religion on the other hand cannot be proven EVEN IF we are to make those above assumptions.
Can I absolutely prove George Washington? Not at all - because I might live in a solipsistic world of illusion.
When a historian or a scientist describes something s/he is merely describing the reality we know.
Whether that reality is REAL is the job of philosophers.
Why such long replies....
>If you don't have a criterion for deciding how to prove God's existence then in what way could anyone prove to you God's existence. If there is such a way then by definition it would be because you have accepted a criterion.
It's up to you to define it not me. If you want to prove it you have to say "define God as X" and then proceed to make a case. But I don't have to make an assertion of what God is as long as I'm saying "no evidence" If I wanted to say "god for sure doesn't exist" like some new atheists then I would indeed need to make a definition.
>You want to make a statement but have it be unassailable by saying you aren't saying anything which is the exact opposite of a statement.
Once again the BoP is on you and that includes defining what God is. I'm not saying anything. All I'm saying is "I have yet to hear a good argument for God" Those arguments I refer to DO give definitions of God and I STILL reject them.
Re Judaism being unique
Uniqueness does not equal divinity non sequitir
Judaism might be unique but it is not uniquely unique
>You do have a burden of proof in any event.
Read the post and the comments again no BoP on me. Period. I make only a negative assertion. Saying there is no proof = there is no LOGICAL reason to believe it.
>You have made a positive denial that evidence is possible for religion and of course that means you have the burden of proof for that statement.
No I haven't stop getting excited buddy. I'm not going to say every time I write something AFAIK. I figured you'd be smart enough to realize that I always mean AFAIK and "no evidence YET" But apparently you're obsessed with finding my positive assertion. Give up I'm not making one and stop trying to twist my words to find one.
>But you leave them no way to do so. You keep on leaving the job of making arguments for others but have no way for them to make an argument.
I'm not going to synthesize 500 yrs of philosophy in this thread. Go take another philosophy class.
I accidentally pressed the like button to the below since I thought I was pressing reply but there is no reply button to it.
"Why such long replies...."
>That is an irrelevant question and not one to be asked
Lol chill out I was just asking.
>My argument which I did not fully make involves arguing in terms of asking where ideas come from that are not easily explicable.
Well yeah that's the problem is you're not making an argument your just hinting to one...
>When you say that evidence for God and religion or whatever is not good enough that is an assertion.
We can discuss the "proofs for God" in detail if you want and I will show you that they don't stand up to logic. So yes it is an assertion and I'm willing to prove it. But when we speak generally of God/religion before any proofs have been brought we must decide who the BoP is on and I've shown it's on God/religion.
>You are not saying the evidence as far as you know isn't good. You are saying it isn't good.
Lol! No I'm not! You're not making any sense. I've told you a billion times that I'm not saying that I'm not saying that I'm not saying that. Do you get it yet? No? Let's try again I'm not saying that. I can;t believe that you're persisting in using this strawman when I've said explicitly 5 times that that is not my position. Do you think I'm lying to you and secretly hold this belief you've imputed to me that God cannot and will never be proven? I secretly believe this but am denying it? Do you think there is some sort of elaborate conspiracy on my part to cover up my true logical position? Seriously I'm baffled.
>So let's see I say there is a God and you say my evidence is not good enough and I can't challenge your assertion because you haven't said anything and yet if you haven't said anything what am I arguing with you about. I can't argue with someone who is not saying anything.
Sigh. You are having trouble distinguishing between different discussions. If you were to proffer a proof then I would indeed have to cough up an argument against your proof. Yes, you're right I would have to make a positive assertion to disprove your proof. However since that is not the present discussion, and you have not brought a proof, I haven't discussed this.
When I describe positive vs. negative assertions in reference to God et al I'm looking at a blank slate with no proofs on either side. If there are no proofs on either side then the BoP is on the positive assertion i.e. God and religion NOT on the negative assertion of "Don't know" (AFAIK, Yet, etc.)
If you have a stellar proof by all means bring it and I will think about it and try to explain whether it makes sense or not.
The present discussion is merely assuming that you in fact do NOT have a stellar proof. If you do then you would be claiming that you have brought your proof and the BoP is now on me. But until that point when you actually open your mouth and attempt to prove God we are stuck assuming that you got nothing.
Do me a favor email me your argument for God in general and Judaism in particular. And number the steps of logic so 1) 2) 3) etc. so that I can easily follow your argument. Then I will either respond to you by email or even (if you want) do a full post dedicated to discussing your proofs. Stop saying you have a proof in your backpocket and not sharing it with us.Thanks.
As you indicate, the problem of talking about God in general is that there are many different ideas and definitions that people have about it. Mystics have a different idea in mind than rationalists, for example. intellectuals think differently about it than the common man. In Judaism, though, the most important theologian was Rambam for sure. So, if we limit the discussion to Judaism, his definition would be the best place to start for a good discussion.
What empirical evidence do we have of george washington, if you don;t want to get into this discussion, I will understand.
We have millions of independent sources pointing to his existence.
Read Michael Shermer's stuff about Holocaust Denial.
So, by that you mean we have a lot of books that talk about his existence? And a tombstone that claims he is buried there (I am not sure where this is, but I think it exists).
Lol yes essentially. But the point is we have what is called a convergence of evidence. Which means that we have multiple writings, eyewitness accounts, documents, and monuments from different people some of whom never met each other all independently making the claim that a man called George Washington existed. It would be a huge coincidence if all these people, seemingly without any organization to falsify the records intentionally, all independently came to an erroneous conclusion.
If all our information about George Washington ultimately stemmed from one or two accounts from which everyone else copied then perhaps we would not be so confident that he existed.
The contemporary sources are essentially worthless because he died in 1797. So, if you mean to say we have a bunch of different books from the 18th century that talk about him that did not know of each other, that would be more convincing.
However, I personally have never seen any french or British writers that were contemporaries of George Washington that wrote about him. If you know of any that would be FANTASTIC. However, if we use your logic and let's just say only American writers talk about him in the 18th century. Couldn't we say they are not trustworthy because they have an agenda?
However, I do believe that other people talk about George Washington outside of America. But, I have other things to bring up once you answer this one.
>The contemporary sources are essentially worthless because he died in 1797.
I meant contemporary to HIM. I mean people writing about him when he was still alive or a few years after his death.
>However, I personally have never seen any french or British writers that were contemporaries of George Washington that wrote about him.
Even if that were true (and I doubt it the guy was president he was sending diplomatic envoys to various countries all around the world) There are enough independent American sources who never met each other who all came up with the same guy.
>Couldn't we say they are not trustworthy because they have an agenda?
That would be some mighty impressive collective thinking thousands of Americans all coming up with the same guy without any organized plan. That would require an amount of organization that we cannot imagine even in the twenty first century.
What do you mean? There were very few people in America at that time that could read and write. So, really only the intellectuals, aka the founding fathers, needed to get together and come up with this conspiracy. In fact, it would seem like a great idea, to have a heroic figure that everyone could talk about, but no one ever saw. Kinda like the cherry tree he chopped down and could not tell a lie.
How many contemporaries ever met him? I know there are many letters that he "wrote" but how many people met him and wrote about him?
Anyway, a MUCH MORE comparable history source would be that of the ancient Egypt documents. How can we know anything in them are really true? We are going to rely on these single sources for an accurate history of Egypt?
The literate population in America was more than just the founding fathers. You have 13 colonies which all have legislators ranging from 100-200 people. All these 13 governments also have their own literate bureaucracies. Then you have the British Army with its own big staff. Then you have the various churchmen all around the country who can presumably write. There also universities with thousands of literate people. It might be a small percentage of the overall population but there were definitely lots of literate people besides the founding fathers.
>In fact, it would seem like a great idea, to have a heroic figure that everyone could talk about, but no one ever saw.
They could've probably done a better job. A general who loses most of his battles is not exactly the best role model ;)
Ancient History is very difficult to study. People often are forced to build edifices on one or two mentions. Most Ancient Historians realize this and admit that they're doing the best they can given the paucity of evidence. Obviously our knowledge of Ancient History is not as reliable as modern history.
Could be we got Ancient Egyptian history all or mostly wrong. But I am not familiar with the sources and am not sure how much information there is.
(I assume this is going in the direction of Sinai)
I am just pointing out that according to you there is no way to be certain of almost anything. I especially dislike when people tell me that Judaism is a mass conspiracy because everyone was silly and foolish back then.
That itself is a conspiracy theory and not intellectually honest. There are questions people can ask, but to claim the whole thing is a conspiracy theory? That doesn't sound ridiculous to you?
I would love for someone to come up with a thought out and intelligent idea of where monotheism originated from and, specifically, where the idea of Judaism came from (if not divine). I have yet to find anyone who does this. All I can find are silly claims that have NO basis in reality.
Sure, there are questions on the bible, but the explanations people try to give for where Judaism came from is laughable.
The most logical thing I ever heard came from Orthoprax (the blogger). He told me, perhaps everything in the bible about Sinai is accurate. However, what did the Jews actually see on Sinai: thunder, lightning, a big storm, but does that mean G-D spoke to them?
That was the most thought provoking discussion I ever had with a skeptic.
No one is saying it was a mass conspiracy. (At least I'm not) A conspiracy assumes many people were in on the lie. No one is saying that. (I assume we're discussing the mass revelation)
But all we have about Sinai is one book and we really are not sure exactly when it was written. We don't know if it popped out of nowhere, or if it was just the record of older traditions, we don't know if it was written by one person (i doubt it) or many. THAT is one source and perhaps one lie - not a conspiracy. A conspiracy would be 100 books all independently saying the same thing.
How monotheism came about? I doubt we'll ever know for sure. Why do Jews have a unique conception of God? No idea. But Judaism is not uniquely unique. Other religions are unique in other aspects. You could argue that Zoroastrianism was unique in creating a dualistic theology in a world steeped in hundreds of Gods.
>I would love for someone to come up with a thought out and intelligent idea of where monotheism originated from and, specifically, where the idea of Judaism came from (if not divine)
There are plenty of sociological and historical books out there positing theories about the birth of religion and Monotheism in particular. Its obviously mostly speculation but whatever.
>Sure, there are questions on the bible, but the explanations people try to give for where Judaism came from is laughable.
What makes you think unproven God revealing himself is less laughable?
>The most logical thing I ever heard came from Orthoprax (the blogger). He told me, perhaps everything in the bible about Sinai is accurate. However, what did the Jews actually see on Sinai: thunder, lightning, a big storm, but does that mean G-D spoke to them?
Could be. I have no idea. Could've been a volcano could've been a complete myth. No idea. We can speculate but I doubt we'll know for sure. A plausible natural explanation, however, is possible.
>Like you only more detailed.
You can keep repeating yourself or you can offer a reason why the BoP is on you not me.
>Tell me in what way can religion prove itself to you?
No idea its up to you to figure that out if you want to make a positive assertion about it.
>Ok so I'm right. Great. And we are discussing burden of proof and who is not making an assertion in order to...?
Lol nope you're still wrong. The point is you STILL need to bring a proof. Then we can talk.
>Burden of proof versus don't know?
Yes what don't you get about that? We skeptics say don't know and have not (yet AFAIK) seen any evidence.
>The problem is I'm thinking proofs and proofs to come in the course of thinking about things, very involved and not all expressed fully if at all in words.
Aha... I see you have a strong logical basis for your position then. FYI Things which cannot be expressed in words are usually emotional not logical. And wait... if you have no well formulated proof why do you believe in the first place..... hmmmmmmm - could it be that it's faith/upbringing? nah!
>First give me your disproofs.
No.no no. Time to review today's lesson for the twentieth time - there is no BoP on me. You have still failed to demonstrate that it is indeed on me besides trying to show that I indeed am making positive assertions.
I have said many times that religion can answer all or most questions asked of it so I'm not surprised that you have answers to things etc. The problem with religion there is no evidence to make us believe it in the first place.(AFAIK yet) I want evidence! I want proof! The proof is on you - if it takes you two weeks to write it up so be it.
First explain in a concise and precise manner how the BoP is on me and on my position (preferably numbering reasons and steps of logic) If you explained it already humor me and explain it again.
Then bring a well formulated proof for God, and Rabbinical Judaism come back to me and we'll talk.
No not unless you tell me you don't have all the answers to either my answers to your list of supposed contradictions in the Torah or all the answers to claims for God you have heard as you implied. I am ticked off. I am getting demands from you and put out answers even in email to you and have gotten nothing from you. I have to be in the mood for replying. I don't have the freeist time anymore either.
Lol what is this a shuk? No proof no discussion. (Unless of course you explain coherently why there is in fact BoP on me etc.) Until then I ignore you. Feel free to complain about it.
"Lol what is this a shuk? No proof no discussion. (Unless of course you explain coherently why there is in fact BoP on me etc.)"
So what is your argument, that you right now haven't seen any proof good enough? Fine you yourself admitted to me that a refutation of a claim also has a burden of proof.
Is your argument that you haven't seen anything to convince you yet? That I know. That of course means nothing because it is saying nothing.
If you don't start talking whithin 24 hours I will find every email that I sent you and take out my arguments and post them. If you did not answer them by email you have your chance in front of everyone.
>Is your argument that you haven't seen anything to convince you yet?
It took you awhile - I only said that explicitly about 10x.
Well I can't make a positive assertion to refute your proof if you refuse to spell it out can I?
But you have made a positive assertion already by telling me that you have answers to all the proofs so far. In any event I'll give you one right now off the top of my head. The Universe is more complicated than the Encyclopedia Brittannica. If you were told the universe is even infinitely old you would not believe the statement that the Encyclopedia Brittanica was made by monkeys typing randomly at the keyboard. If you will claim that you would be willing to say that I will disprove you now by telling you to imagine that all scientific evidence that the earth and monkeys have not been around infinitely long is wrong and all historical evidence that typewriters haven't been around infinitely long is wrong as well. You see all that information was was made by monkeys typing randomly at the keyboard.
Even if the Universe would be infinitely old it is much more complicated than the Encyclopedia Brittanica how can it not have its parts set up by a creator?
Rofl! An argument from incredulity. Seriously? You're argument is:
1. Even if the universe has been around for an infinite amount of time I don't believe it's not designed
2. Therefore it's designed.
Lol. Why would you think that incredulity has any logical value? . Do you realize how fallacious it is to use the word "believe" in a logical argument? If you say you have faith that the universe is not random that's one thing but don't pretend it's logical.
More importantly the "infinite monkey theorem" can be proven mathematically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
Rofl! An argument from incredulity. Seriously? You're argument is:
1. Even if the universe has been around for an infinite amount of time I don't believe it's not designed
2. Therefore it's designed.
Lol. Why would you think that incredulity has any logical value? . Do you realize how fallacious it is to use the word "believe" in a logical argument? If you say you have faith that the universe is not random that's one thing but don't pretend it's logical.
More importantly the "infinite monkey theorem" can be proven mathematically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
Jane is making a positive statement but in the end and that's changing the example. Most people are not going to be making such a claim. The choice given in the example offered to you is rain or no rain.
I meant to click on reply but landed up clicking the like button so I am posting here since there is no reply button. G*3 said in reply to Rabban Gamliel
"> But assuming that happens you now have two positive claims. That raises an interesting situation because neither statement would be negative so you would be saying there is no burden of proof here.
No, two positive claims don’t cancel each other. Instead, both sides must bring proof, and we should go with the side that has better evidence. Bob has shown that the data is consistent with the fact it is raining. Jane has made a claim that despite this, it is in fact not raining, but something else is going on. Until Jane provides evidence for her assertion, I would agree with Bob that it’s raining. If Jane points out that they are standing under a sprinkler and the water is not coming from the clouds, then she has met her burden of proof and provided a better explanation based on additional data (the sprinkler) that Bob wasn’t addressing."
I hadn't said otherwise. I did not say two positive claims cancel each other.
Shilton HaSechel said to Rabban Gamliel
"Rofl! An argument from incredulity. Seriously?"
It's an argument from probabilities. You do believe in statistics, no? You make arguments based on incredulity, no? You do believe someone you know is really the same person you think and not a lookalike no? Did you need to make a scientific study or a logical study? Well if you are so credulous you can make a bigger believer than most and perhaps you are in a nonreligious sense.
"You're argument is:
1. Even if the universe has been around for an infinite amount of time I don't believe it's not designed
2. Therefore it's designed."
No that's not the argument. I could say about you "You're argument is:
1. I believe in contradictions I have listed for the Torah.
2. Therefore there are contradictions in the Torah."
"Lol. Why would you think that incredulity has any logical value? .
Do you realize how fallacious it is to use the word "believe" in a logical argument?"
Believe does not mean faith. Do you believe the world is round? Only one word answer allowed, yes or no. No? Ok so you say it is not round. The word believe has more than one use. It is also used in the sense of not being sure as is used also for saying think/s as you know. That's three meanings I can think for it.
"If you say no If you say you have faith that the universe is not random that's one thing but don't pretend it's logical."
Oh the universe is random by definition? Scientists don't agree.
"More importantly the "infinite monkey theorem" can be proven mathematically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_th..."
It's not that simple. Nothing has a zero probability as far as the math is concerened. You can find yourself suddenly zapped into Australia with less than zero probability. But for all practical purposes we declare that certain probabilities are zero that something would be possible. That's how we determine who is the father in paternity tests for instance. That's how we are supposed to determine who is guilty in criminal cases.
In any event what are you saying? That it is possible that whatever you have ever read in life that would indicate the universe and whatever is in it, natural and artificial are not old enough for monkeys to type randomly the Encyclopedia Britannica was randomly typed by monkeys so that in reality monkeys could have randomly typed the Encyclopedia Britannica? Look at an Encyclopedia Britannica and tell yourself that. Address what I wrote instead of ignoring it and replacing it with your nonsense.
>No that's not the argument.
So nu what is it?
>>You do believe someone you know is really the same person you think and not a lookalike no? Did you need to make a scientific study or a logical study?
I believe many things - but they are not logical and I don't pretend they're logical. So once again if it's faith - good 4 u - but it's still not logic nor is it science.
>It's not that simple. Nothing has a zero probability as far as the math is concerened.
Read the article. Once you start nearing infinity (infinite monkeys or infinite time for typing) it becomes 99% PROBABLE that the monkeys will type the collected works of Shakespeare (or anything for that matter.) We're not talking about a remote possibility we're talking about an almost sure PROBABILITY.
>That it is possible that whatever you have ever read in life that would indicate the universe and whatever is in it, natural and artificial are not old enough for monkeys to type randomly the Encyclopedia Britannica was randomly typed by monkeys so that in reality monkeys could have randomly typed the Encyclopedia Britannica?
Um... I'm not quite sure what you're saying?? Are you asking me if I think the universe has been around that long???
Shilton HaSechel said to Rabban Gamliel
">No that's not the argument.
So nu what is it?"
Sigh. HaDaran Alach Mesechta Monkeys later when I have more time today.
">>You do believe someone you know is really the same person you think and not a lookalike no? Did you need to make a scientific study or a logical study?
I believe many things which are illogical but I don't pretend that they ARE logical. So once again if it's faith - good 4 u - but it's still not logic nor is it
science."
Tell me do you believe that someone you know is really the same person you think and not a lookalike from another dimension?
">It's not that simple. Nothing has a zero probability as far as the math is concerened.
Read the article. Once you start nearing infinity (infinite monkeys or infinite time for typing) it becomes 99% PROBABLE that the monkeys will type the collected works
of Shakespeare (or anything for that matter.) We're not talking about a remote possibility we're talking about an almost sure PROBABILITY."
Sure if you near infinity in probability. The monkey has to just happen to throw out all mistakes. Every time something can be fit for the Encyclopedia it needs to be
preserved at least at some point. The point is probabilities heap on of the monkeys making mistakes and throwing out correct pieces along with mistakes and of keeping
mistakes. The only alternative is to argue they will produce an infinite amount of works over time including that Encyclopedia but that compounds the problem because
now you are needing to have finite amounts of time per work which reproduces the original problem. There is another problem for you if you accept the idea of monkeys
producing works through history. If they can eventually produce by chance all those wqorks and you refute me as to a creator for the universe with this what can't
occur just by chance? You yet said the universe is random.
">That it is possible that whatever you have ever read in life that would indicate the universe and whatever is in it, natural and artificial are not old enough for
monkeys to type randomly the Encyclopedia Britannica was randomly typed by monkeys so that in reality monkeys could have randomly typed the Encyclopedia Britannica?
Um... I'm not quite sure what you're saying?? Are you asking me if I think the universe has been around that long???"
I'm saying it is easy to claim that the Encyclopedia could be randomly typed by monkeys when you claim that you there wasn't enough time but if all the evidence for
not having enough time were typed by monkeys it was discovered, then you would really have to confront the question and I'm sure you would say the Encyclopedia was not
typed randomly by monkeys.
On a side note at first you said that logic is universal and then you argued it varies with time and you hold out as a possibility logic also depending on whether
someone is a skeptic or not to be able to see your supposed contradictions in the Torah. Is it that you changed your mind about logic?
>No that's not the argument.
So nu what is it?"
The Universe is more complicated than the Encyclopedia Brittannica. If you were told that the Encyclopedia Brittannica was made by monkeys typing randomly at the keyboard and that all contrary data recorded in records was also just the product of monkeys typing randomly, you would still not believe that the monkeys had typed the Encyclopedia Brittannica or those other documents randomly. Even if the Universe would be infinitely old it is much more complicated than the Encyclopedia Brittanica how can it not have its parts set up by a creator?
So you're saying:
1. The Universe is more complicated that the Britannica (depends what you mean by complicated)
2. I probably wouldn't believe that the Britannica was typed by monkeys
3. Therefore kal v'chomer i I probably don't believe the UNIVERSE was a product of chance
4. Therefore God
Erm... ok ...
I actually typed up a whole response to this but decided I was wasting my time. So do me a favor and think about this for a while and try to figure out what is wrong with this argument. (Don't fret it's not hard)
If you really think this is logical proof for God AT ALL then there is no point in us discussing anything further.
Sorry this is like the twilight zone of logic.
Shilton HaSechel said to Rabban Gamliel
"So you're saying:
1. The Universe is more complicated that the Britannica (depends what you mean by complicated)"
Well by any definition it is more complicated. But in any event the argument is still the same. You are pitting one book's worth of complication against anothers. You don't even need complication as the argument. Existence of anything altogether could have been used as an argument, although frankly existence is complicated.
"So you're saying:
1. The Universe is more complicated that the Britannica (depends what you mean by complicated)
2. I probably wouldn't believe that the Britannica was typed by monkeys
3. Therefore kal v'chomer i I probably don't believe the UNIVERSE was a product of chance
4. Therefore God
Erm... ok ..."
The actual argument is
1. The Universe is more complicated than the Britannica
2. The Britannica could not have been typed by monkeys even if we assume infinity of time and even if the universe always existed
3.Therefore the Britannica needed intelligence to produce it
4. Therefore kal v'chomer the UNIVERSE needed intelligence to produce what is in it.
"I actually typed up a whole response to this but decided I was wasting my time."
Ah but you said that the burden of proof was on you if you wished to say a proof was not valid. You also said that the anyone with a burden of proof has to be the one to post a comment. In any event why would it be a waste of time? Because I wouldn't agree with you? You know for sure? I came up with this proof on the spur of the moment. My emunah is dependent on it?
If you don't respond it will look like this at best and only to your supporters: "Wow Shilton HaSechel must for sure have a good counterargument. So he is right." And you accused me for claiming I am keeping something in my back pocket.
So here would be the syllogism for you:
1.Shilton HaSechel has a counter argument to Rabban Gamliel that he has not revealed
2.It must be correct
3.Therefore Shilton HaSechel is correct and won the debate
4.This is another demonstration of how the Frummies make no sense
5.Well my Antiemunah has been strengthened
6.I sure should be grateful to Shilton HaSechel
>2. The Britannica could not have been typed by monkeys even if we assume infinity of time and even if the universe always existed
Aha that is your mistake - that is not true. Period. Once again the math doesn't lie - given an infinite amount of time or an infinite amount of monkeys the Encyclopedia Britannica WILL be typed. If you don't believe that then that's your problem. I'm going to go and not believe in algebra SEE YA!
>3.Therefore Shilton HaSechel is correct and won the debate
Never said I won just said there was no point in arguing.
>4.This is another demonstration of how the Frummies make no sense
Lol yes.
Anyway it's been fun. But I have certain standards and I'm sorry to say you've disappointed me. I just don't have the patience to try to deconstruct your strange arguments. If you think that means you "win" then good for you! But until further notice I'm bored of arguing with you. Maybe another time. Hatzlacha in your endeavors! Bye!
Everday experience - no supernatural observered. So onus is on people claiming supernatural.
Post a Comment