Was at least the first life form created?

[Minimalist]

Does that clear up the issue for you?

May I put $2 on "No?"

[rjh4 is back]

As far as Burden of Proof goes, when you make a positive claim you have the burden of proof. It can be tricky to figure out which claims are "positive". Hopefully I can make that clear to you.

So if you claim there is a god, you have the positive claim and if I reject that claim I make a negative claim, therefore I don't have to prove my position, you do. If I claim there are no god(s), then I am making a positive claim, and if you reject that claim, that doesn't necessarily mean you believe in Jesus de facto. It just means you reject the claim that there are no gods. So in essence, when you posit something, you then have the burden of proof, and the one rejecting your claim does not unless they posit something of their own. Does that clear up the issue for you?

It does and it makes sense to me. Thank you. Within what you said, it seems to me, then, that the wording of what one says also makes a big difference. For example compare:

Possible statements from a Christian: "I believe in God. " with "There is a God."
Possible statements from an atheist: "I do not belive in gods." with "There are no gods."

The first statement in each set invokes no burden of proof since they are essentially self-verifying, i.e., they are only stating what one believes and nobody could/should reasonably conclude otherwise (with the possible exception of when the hearer has evidence that the sayer is a habitual lier). The second statement in each set is positively saying something that is beyond what the sayer believes and, therefore, invokes the initial burden of proof. Am I correct here?

As far as what an atheist is, I back what Adrian said.

Thank you and Adrian for clarifying this. As I said in my introductory thread, I do not have much contact with atheist. Consequently, I assumed something I should not have. Hopefully, I will keep this in mind for the future so I do not make the same mistake.

As far as the Urey Miller experiment, theVoid nailed it.

It is always interesting to me how people can look at the same things an come to polar opposite conclusions. I think I am coming to the conclusion that this results from the presuppositions we have. For example, I believe in God. One of the reasons why is that I look around and see the complexity of life and I conclude that it could not haved just "happened" and, therefore, God did it. This is a simplification of why I still believe in God but it is quite accurate in describing how I first came to believe in God many years ago. Anyway, because of this belief (my presuppositions) I conclude that the scientific evidence provided by Miller as well as the evidence of "self-replicating" RNA does not provide sufficient proof of abiogenesis (at least for me). To me the actions of "self-replicating" RNA is more analogous to the actions of seed crystals in replicating their crystal structure in the process of crystal formation rather than the kind of "self-replication" that occurs in living things. Furthermore, even if someone did produce life in the laboratory, I would (as you suggested in a previous post) argue that such evidence is not conclusive that that is how life began because there are still other possibilities (creation) or alternatively, that this is evidence of creation because it took many scientists many years with a lot of creative intellect to be able to do it. So now I am trying to understand how atheist's presuppositions would result in their conclusions regarding the evidence if, in fact, they do. In looking into this I ran across the following: Secular Humanism which says in part

God is a theoretical entity that is postulated by theists to explain various phenomena, such as the origin of the universe, the design of the universe, and the origin of living things. Modern science, however, can explain all of these phenomena without postulating the existence of God.1 In the words of Laplace, science has no need of that hypothesis.2 By demonstrating that God is not needed to explain anything, science has proven that there is no more reason to believe in the existence of God than to believe in the existence of phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, or Vulcan. This may explain why more than 90% of the world's top scientists disbelieve or doubt the existence of God

Now I can certainly see that if one is an atheist (does not believe in gods) and uses this as reasoning for that belief (a possible atheistic presupposition) how he/she would tend to look at this kind of evidence and conclude that it is sufficient evidence to conclude that a god is not necessary. So in an attempt to try to understand your thinking on this, I was wondering if you would tell me whether you agree with the quote or, if not, what your presuppositions are (presupposing you have them ). This would go a long way in helping me to understand your perspective which is what I want to do. (I am not here to argue or try to convince anyone to change their minds because I don't think I could; nor do I think anything anyone says here will change my mind. I do, however, think it is helpful to understand the position of those who do not think like me. So that is the basis for my request.)

[Nick A.]

God is a theoretical entity that is postulated by theists to explain various phenomena, such as the origin of the universe, the design of the universe, and the origin of living things. Modern science, however, can explain all of these phenomena without postulating the existence of God.1 In the words of Laplace, science has no need of that hypothesis.2 By demonstrating that God is not needed to explain anything, science has proven that there is no more reason to believe in the existence of God than to believe in the existence of phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, or Vulcan. This may explain why more than 90% of the world's top scientists disbelieve or doubt the existence of God

Now I can certainly see that if one is an atheist (does not believe in gods) and uses this as reasoning for that belief (a possible atheistic presupposition) how he/she would tend to look at this kind of evidence and conclude that it is sufficient evidence to conclude that a god is not necessary. So in an attempt to try to understand your thinking on this, I was wondering if you would tell me whether you agree with the quote or, if not, what your presuppositions are (presupposing you have them ). This would go a long way in helping me to understand your perspective which is what I want to do.

Sure thing. I would agree with that quote, almost entirely. In the most minimalistic sense, my disbelieve of a God is based upon it's lack of credibility as a hypothesis as to the creation and function of the universe. I was raised a Catholic, and believed myself to be devout for more than a decade. However, the more I exposed myself to the sciences, the more I noticed inconsistencies with what I had believed. What gave me the push to atheism was the simple question "Is God, a magical thing in the sky, really the best explanation that we as intelligent beings can come up with for the universe?" Obviously I think the answer to the question to be definitively no. From there, I delved into the more detailed aspects of Atheism, which brings me to where I am today. I hope that helps in your "understanding."

~Nick

[rjh4 is back]

Sure thing. I would agree with that quote, almost entirely. In the most minimalistic sense, my disbelieve of a God is based upon it's incredibility as a hypothesis as to the creation and function of the universe. I was raised a Catholic, and believed myself to be devout for more than a decade. However, the more I exposed myself to the sciences, the more I noticed inconsistencies with what I had believed. What gave me the push to atheism was the simple question "Is God, a magical thing in the sky, really the best explanation that we as intelligent beings can come up with for the universe?" Obviously I think the answer to the question to be definitively no. From there, I delved into the more detailed aspects of Atheism, which brings me to where I am today. I hope that helps in your "understanding."

~Nick

It does. Thanks, Nick.

[Eilonnwy]

It does and it makes sense to me. Thank you. Within what you said, it seems to me, then, that the wording of what one says also makes a big difference. For example compare:

Possible statements from a Christian: "I believe in God. " with "There is a God."
Possible statements from an atheist: "I do not belive in gods." with "There are no gods."

The first statement in each set invokes no burden of proof since they are essentially self-verifying, i.e., they are only stating what one believes and nobody could/should reasonably conclude otherwise (with the possible exception of when the hearer has evidence that the sayer is a habitual lier). The second statement in each set is positively saying something that is beyond what the sayer believes and, therefore, invokes the initial burden of proof. Am I correct here?

Ehhh, you are very close to the mark, but I would make a tiny distinction. When you say you believe something, it still can be construed as a truth claim that needs to meet the burden of proof. The "Burden of Proof" is for claims, so the claim that does not invoke burden of proof would be "I do not accept your claim that there is a God". or "I do not accept your claim that there is no God." Or as in the case of the argument you proposed "I do not accept your claim that life cannot come from non-life" or "I do not accept your claim abiogenesis is entirely disproven".

It's a tiny niggling distinction, but essentially you're getting it. This is why many atheists will make the important distinction that atheism is not "belief in no god", but a "lack of believe in god", a "disbelief". Therefore atheism is a rejection of the God claim which encompasses those that simply lack belief as well as those that assert positively that there is not god. It's best not to assume all atheists positively believe there is no god.

It is always interesting to me how people can look at the same things an come to polar opposite conclusions. I think I am coming to the conclusion that this results from the presuppositions we have. For example, I believe in God. One of the reasons why is that I look around and see the complexity of life and I conclude that it could not haved just "happened" and, therefore, God did it. This is a simplification of why I still believe in God but it is quite accurate in describing how I first came to believe in God many years ago.

Atheists don't think "this" just "happened". We have a good reliable explanation for how humans came into existence via evolution. We do not know specifically how the first living organism came into existence. Science has a good idea, and abiogenesis is becoming more and more promising, and the Urey-Miller experiment, while not a slam dunk, shows it's possible. Truth be told, I do not know how the first living organism came into existence and that's okay. I'm comfortable with claiming "I don't know". It's intellectual honesty. Saying "God did it" is essentially a non-answer. Claiming a God started it all says nothing of how, why, where, when, etc... It's just an answer that makes people feel like they know the answer, but they know just as much as I do, or possibly even less, since when people leave it at "God did it" they stop looking towards science and learning about all it's discoveries. It can stunt intellectual growth.

Also, even if Science proved tomorrow a God had to have created the first living organism, it does nothing to prove that the god is a personal god (Deist vs theist god) and so without the ability to prove it's a personal god, we cannot make the leap from the creator God to being the Christian god. So maybe it may make you feel better to imagine God created life because you can't imagine another way, but that does not make it true.

Anyway, because of this belief (my presuppositions) I conclude that the scientific evidence provided by Miller as well as the evidence of "self-replicating" RNA does not provide sufficient proof of abiogenesis (at least for me). To me the actions of "self-replicating" RNA is more analogous to the actions of seed crystals in replicating their crystal structure in the process of crystal formation rather than the kind of "self-replication" that occurs in living things. Furthermore, even if someone did produce life in the laboratory, I would (as you suggested in a previous post) argue that such evidence is not conclusive that that is how life began because there are still other possibilities (creation) or alternatively, that this is evidence of creation because it took many scientists many years with a lot of creative intellect to be able to do it.

As I said, the experiment was not a slam dunk, but it doesn't rule it out either. It shows abiogensis is possible and we have a lot of work to do.

I think with better science it is possible to prove abiogenesis true (If it in fact is). We've already done that with evolution. It is an incontrovertible fact that evolution is true, no God needed. The so called "controversy" is completely contrived by theists.

Furthermore, if you can come up with a workable hypothesis that creation is true and we can test it and the test is repeatable, the hypthesis falsifiable, then I'd be willing to consider it. Scientists creating life in a laboratory would not prove creation in any way. Humans have evolved organisms in their own way, doesn't prove God evolved us, just that human intervention is possible.

So now I am trying to understand how atheist's presuppositions would result in their conclusions regarding the evidence if, in fact, they do. In looking into this I ran across the following: Secular Humanism which says in part

God is a theoretical entity that is postulated by theists to explain various phenomena, such as the origin of the universe, the design of the universe, and the origin of living things. Modern science, however, can explain all of these phenomena without postulating the existence of God.1 In the words of Laplace, science has no need of that hypothesis.2 By demonstrating that God is not needed to explain anything, science has proven that there is no more reason to believe in the existence of God than to believe in the existence of phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, or Vulcan. This may explain why more than 90% of the world's top scientists disbelieve or doubt the existence of God

Now I can certainly see that if one is an atheist (does not believe in gods) and uses this as reasoning for that belief (a possible atheistic presupposition) how he/she would tend to look at this kind of evidence and conclude that it is sufficient evidence to conclude that a god is not necessary. So in an attempt to try to understand your thinking on this, I was wondering if you would tell me whether you agree with the quote or, if not, what your presuppositions are (presupposing you have them ). This would go a long way in helping me to understand your perspective which is what I want to do. (I am not here to argue or try to convince anyone to change their minds because I don't think I could; nor do I think anything anyone says here will change my mind. I do, however, think it is helpful to understand the position of those who do not think like me. So that is the basis for my request.)

Yeah, I would agree with the quote. I was raised Catholic and luckily the Catholics don't refuse to teach evolution. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that science was the best method for explaining what is true about the world. In essence, science brings the goods. It provides the most reliable evidence and proof of what is true about this world. Is that the only reason I disbelieve? No. I also saw how religion crumbles under scrutiny, especially the Bible. Science plays a large, but not the only, part in my atheism.

[rjh4 is back]

Ehhh, you are very close to the mark, but I would make a tiny distinction. When you say you believe something, it still can be construed as a truth claim that needs to meet the burden of proof.

Now there you lost me. I can agree that the statements “I believe in God” and “I do not believe in gods” are both truth claims but I think they are self-verifying and, therefore, do not require any more proof than the statement itself. If I made the statement to you: “I believe in God.” what proof could I offer that that is what I believe? Would it be reasonable for you to respond by saying, “No that is not what you believe” or “You have not proven that that is what you believe”? I do not think so. At best, if you wanted to push this, you could ask “Why do you believe in God?” and I could provide my reasons. Given my reasons you could reasonably counter by saying “Those reasons would not lead me to conclude there are gods.” However, I do not think a reasonable response would be “You have not proven your case” because in my proposed conversation, there was nothing I needed to prove to begin with. I would not have provided my reasoning to show “that God is" but merely to explain why I believe in God. To make either of the statements “I believe in God” and “I do not believe in gods” merely give some information about the sayer, much like if someone tells you what their name is. I do not think it is anything more nor do I think either of the statements should be construed to be anything more, especially considering how wording gets dissected so much here (which I think is a good thing and doesn’t happen as much as it should even here).

What do you think? Did I convince you?

Atheists don't think "this" just "happened".

I know. In context, I was explaining what I was thinking, never intending to imply anything about atheists.

Relative to your comments regarding science, I must say that they seem to be riddled with the fallacy of reification. While I realize that the site provided does make a distinction between reification and speaking of abstractions metaphorically, I do not think you are doing the latter in some instances. Let me give you an example. You say:

Science has a good idea, and abiogenesis is becoming more and more promising, and the Urey-Miller experiment, while not a slam dunk, shows it's possible.

I think I count three instances of reification here. 1) “Science has a good idea”. Science is an abstraction of what scientists do. Science itself does not have any ideas at all. Scientists carry out experiments and/or make observations and then draw conclusions about those experiments/observations. Assuming that the scientist is careful (which I think is a good assumption generally as I do not think many scientists are interested in falsifying their data), we can then agree on the observations made. The conclusions are another story. 2) “abiogenesis is becoming more and more promising”. I am not sure about this one. It could fall into metaphoric use so I will not elaborate on this. 3) “the Urey-Miller experiment…shows it’s possible”. No. Urey-Miller themselves demonstrated that when such and such is done, amino acids, etc. are produced. That is it. If you want to conclude from that or use that as reasoning why you think abiogenesis is possible, then feel free. I cannot argue with that. But I think it is unreasonable to conflate the experiment/observations with any particular conclusion like you do in your statement. What you are essentially saying is that there is only one reasonable conclusion that one can reach from the facts of the experiment without having to explain why this is the only reasonable conclusion or even a reasonable conclusion at all.

since when people leave it at "God did it" they stop looking towards science and learning about all it's discoveries.

I think this is a totally unsupported assertion. Many earlier scientists believed in God and the Bible and yet made many wonderful contributions to our body of scientific knowledge. Did they stop looking and learning just because they believed in God and the Bible? No. I actually love science. When I read about all the things that scientists discover it really blows my mind and the more I learn the more I realize how little we really know. My believe in God and the Bible in no way stunts my growth in this area even though I might draw different conclusions than the scientists would. I really think this goes back to what I said about presuppositions.

Also, even if Science proved tomorrow a God had to have created the first living organism, it does nothing to prove that the god is a personal god (Deist vs theist god) and so without the ability to prove it's a personal god, we cannot make the leap from the creator God to being the Christian god. So maybe it may make you feel better to imagine God created life because you can't imagine another way, but that does not make it true.

I agree. What I think doesn’t necessarily make it true and neither does the conclusion of a scientist necessarily make the conclusion true.

I think with better science it is possible to prove abiogenesis true (If it in fact is).

I think this is too inaccurate and broad sweeping to be reasonable. It think it would be reasonable to say: “I think with better science it is possible to demonstrate or prove abiogenesis can happen and from this I would conclude that that is how life can into existence in our universe.” Again, I think it makes it more clear to separate the facts of science (the actual observations made) from the conclusions drawn therefrom.

We've already done that with evolution. It is an incontrovertible fact that evolution is true, no God needed.

I might be able to agree with this depending on what you mean by “evolution”. If you are referring to the observation that organisms change and that “natural selection” occurs, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. Those are observations that are easily verified. If you are referring to common descent (the concept that all life descended from a common anscestor), I would wholeheartedly disagree with you. You may draw the conclusion from the observable facts that you think common descent is how the life we observe got here, but it is far from an incontrovertible fact. The type of evolution we do observe, as noted above, simply does not necessarily lead to the conclusion of common descent. Just because many people would agree with the conclusion does not make it a fact, as you have pointed out in other threads.

Scientists creating life in a laboratory would not prove creation in any way.

I think I said that I would take this as evidence for creation. I think throwing around the word “prove” in the way you do confuses things. You talk about “proving” things like science can lead to absolute truth. I do not think it can. We can make models that predict how the world behaves but they are just models. They do not tell us anything about absolute truth. Proof is the evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. (from dictionary.com) But it is clear that it is not talking about absolute truth. We could clearly both look at the same evidence (the observed facts) and it could prove one thing to you and another to me and neither would necessarily be right or wrong. I think we are back to the presuppositions with which we look at the observed facts.

Yeah, I would agree with the quote. I was raised Catholic and luckily the Catholics don't refuse to teach evolution. I came to the conclusion a long time ago that science was the best method for explaining what is true about the world. In essence, science brings the good. It provides the most reliable evidence and proof of what is true about this world. Is that the only reason I disbelieve? No. I also saw how religion crumbles under scrutiny, especially the Bible. Science plays a large, but not the only, part in my atheism.

My whole problem (maybe not my whole problem ) with the quote is the statement “God is a theoretical entity that is postulated by theists to explain various phenomena”. Isn’t this really begging the question? The question is whether or not God exists and one starts with a statement like above that assumes that God is merely “a theoretical entity”. Doesn’t that make the whole line of reasoning fallacious?

[Eilonnwy]

Now there you lost me. I can agree that the statements “I believe in God” and “I do not believe in gods” are both truth claims but I think they are self-verifying and, therefore, do not require any more proof than the statement itself. If I made the statement to you: “I believe in God.” what proof could I offer that that is what I believe? Would it be reasonable for you to respond by saying, “No that is not what you believe” or “You have not proven that that is what you believe”? I do not think so. At best, if you wanted to push this, you could ask “Why do you believe in God?” and I could provide my reasons. Given my reasons you could reasonably counter by saying “Those reasons would not lead me to conclude there are gods.” However, I do not think a reasonable response would be “You have not proven your case” because in my proposed conversation, there was nothing I needed to prove to begin with. I would not have provided my reasoning to show “that God is" but merely to explain why I believe in God. To make either of the statements “I believe in God” and “I do not believe in gods” merely give some information about the sayer, much like if someone tells you what their name is. I do not think it is anything more nor do I think either of the statements should be construed to be anything more, especially considering how wording gets dissected so much here (which I think is a good thing and doesn’t happen as much as it should even here).

What do you think? Did I convince you?

You missed the point. The word "belief" doesn't automatically mean you have or do not have the burden of proof. It's about claims. i.e. "There is no God" and "There is a god" are both claims that require a burden of proof. Rejecting those claims do not. You can say "I believe there is a God" and you still have the burden of proof if you want to convince someone else.

Relative to your comments regarding science, I must say that they seem to be riddled with the fallacy of reification. While I realize that the site provided does make a distinction between reification and speaking of abstractions metaphorically, I do not think you are doing the latter in some instances. Let me give you an example. You say:

Science has a good idea, and abiogenesis is becoming more and more promising, and the Urey-Miller experiment, while not a slam dunk, shows it's possible.

I think I count three instances of reification here. 1) “Science has a good idea”. Science is an abstraction of what scientists do. Science itself does not have any ideas at all. Scientists carry out experiments and/or make observations and then draw conclusions about those experiments/observations. Assuming that the scientist is careful (which I think is a good assumption generally as I do not think many scientists are interested in falsifying their data), we can then agree on the observations made. The conclusions are another story. 2) “abiogenesis is becoming more and more promising”. I am not sure about this one. It could fall into metaphoric use so I will not elaborate on this. 3) “the Urey-Miller experiment…shows it’s possible”. No. Urey-Miller themselves demonstrated that when such and such is done, amino acids, etc. are produced. That is it. If you want to conclude from that or use that as reasoning why you think abiogenesis is possible, then feel free. I cannot argue with that. But I think it is unreasonable to conflate the experiment/observations with any particular conclusion like you do in your statement. What you are essentially saying is that there is only one reasonable conclusion that one can reach from the facts of the experiment without having to explain why this is the only reasonable conclusion or even a reasonable conclusion at all.

I don't agree. When I say science has ideas, I simply mean there are many hypotheses that are being explored and tested. When I say abiogenesis is promising, I mean it has not been disproved scientifically and looks more and more likely. That doesn't mean it can't be disproved. As for Urey-Miller, I don't know how more clear I can be. Amino acids are the building blocks of life. It's an important step in life from non-life. I fully admit that the experiment does not show how the first living organism was formed on earth, but it does not disprove abiogenesis but rather provides valuable insight. So yes, I'm being metaphorical. I tend to do that, I'm a fiction writer. Never once did I say, abiogenesis is absolutely proven and Urey-Miller proved it.

I think this is a totally unsupported assertion. Many earlier scientists believed in God and the Bible and yet made many wonderful contributions to our body of scientific knowledge. Did they stop looking and learning just because they believed in God and the Bible? No. I actually love science. When I read about all the things that scientists discover it really blows my mind and the more I learn the more I realize how little we really know. My believe in God and the Bible in no way stunts my growth in this area even though I might draw different conclusions than the scientists would. I really think this goes back to what I said about presuppositions.

I don't think it is. Many people do everything they can to stop scientific inquiry. This is why we have a battle in various states and countries to protect evolution from people who want to "teach the controversy". There is no controversy in evolution. It's a fact.

I'm not saying every believer everywhere has no interest in science. There are many brilliant scientists our there who are religious. However, there are instances where people, especially fundamentalists (of ANY religion), try to block scientific learning. This is why many people home school their children, so they won't learn science. This is why the religious try to book burn and censor. They have no understanding of science and they don't want it, because they would rather believe God did it, and don't dare question it. That's all that I was referring to.

I think this is too inaccurate and broad sweeping to be reasonable. It think it would be reasonable to say: “I think with better science it is possible to demonstrate or prove abiogenesis can happen and from this I would conclude that that is how life can into existence in our universe.” Again, I think it makes it more clear to separate the facts of science (the actual observations made) from the conclusions drawn therefrom.

I don't think my statement is too broad. Science has proven the Big Bang, Evolution, Gravity, etc... These are all theories that are fact, proven by science. It's not fallacious at all to think science could do the same with abiogenesis someday if abiogenesis is in fact true.

I might be able to agree with this depending on what you mean by “evolution”. If you are referring to the observation that organisms change and that “natural selection” occurs, I would wholeheartedly agree with you. Those are observations that are easily verified. If you are referring to common descent (the concept that all life descended from a common anscestor), I would wholeheartedly disagree with you. You may draw the conclusion from the observable facts that you think common descent is how the life we observe got here, but it is far from an incontrovertible fact. The type of evolution we do observe, as noted above, simply does not necessarily lead to the conclusion of common descent. Just because many people would agree with the conclusion does not make it a fact, as you have pointed out in other threads.

The theory that we all are descended from a common ancestor is fact. Francis Collins, the man who worked on the human genome and is Christian, states that the DNA evidence alone proves common descent. Then of course the fossil record proves this as well. This is an established scientific fact.

Please tell me you do know the scientific meaning of the word theory?

I think I said that I would take this as evidence for creation. I think throwing around the word “prove” in the way you do confuses things. You talk about “proving” things like science can lead to absolute truth. I do not think it can. We can make models that predict how the world behaves but they are just models. They do not tell us anything about absolute truth. Proof is the evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. (from dictionary.com) But it is clear that it is not talking about absolute truth. We could clearly both look at the same evidence (the observed facts) and it could prove one thing to you and another to me and neither would necessarily be right or wrong. I think we are back to the presuppositions with which we look at the observed facts.

Absolute truth is impossible. Humans are too fallible. The scientific method, however, is the most reliable method by which we can discern what is most likely to be true from what is most likely to be false. So, when I say it's not proof, I'm simply saying it doesn't meet the rigors of the scientific method. Never once did I claim science is absolute truth.

Besides, your so called "evidence" is terrible. It's kind of like a spin on the blind watchmaker. It's along the lines of saying "you come across a watch and you know it's designed" to "you see life being produced from non-life in a lab by people, so you know life has to be created". I know that's not exactly what you said, but it's along those lines of reasoning. It's a ridiculous argument that has been debunked repeatedly.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?t...rom_design

My whole problem (maybe not my whole problem ) with the quote is the statement “God is a theoretical entity that is postulated by theists to explain various phenomena”. Isn’t this really begging the question? The question is whether or not God exists and one starts with a statement like above that assumes that God is merely “a theoretical entity”. Doesn’t that make the whole line of reasoning fallacious?

No. Theoretical doesn't assume non-existence. It's simply a way of stating that God is an entity that has certain attributes postulated by theists. It does not imply non-existence. For example, Neptune (the planet) was a Theoretical Entity. Scientists saw unexpected changes in Uranus's orbit that they couldn't explain, so they came up with the theoretical entity of an 8th planet to explain these changes. Eventually, Neptune was proven to exist.

[rjh4 is back]

@Eilonnwy

Regarding this last nuance of our burden of proof discussion, your position seems too arbitrary for me and fails to accurately consider what is being said. Consequently, I disagree on this nuance while agreeing with you on the rest.

I wonder whether or not Minimalist would have won the bet!!

Regarding the rest, I am convinced that the basis for our disagreement is the presuppositions through which we filter the information and will leave it at that. I do thank you for the time and effort you took in responding. It was really helpful.

Moving on to a different topic. I was wondering if you would be willing to elaborate on what you meant when you said: "I also saw how religion crumbles under scrutiny, especially the Bible." Could you please provide some specifics on this?

[Eilonnwy]

Regarding this last nuance of our burden of proof discussion, your position seems too arbitrary for me and fails to accurately consider what is being said. Consequently, I disagree on this nuance while agreeing with you on the rest.

It's fairly simple, you posit a claim, you have the burden of proof. You reject a claim, then you don't have the burden of proof, it doesn't matter when you you've used the word "believe" or not. Basic logic.

Regarding the rest, I am convinced that the basis for our disagreement is the presuppositions through which we filter the information and will leave it at that. I do thank you for the time and effort you took in responding. It was really helpful.

If you want to leave it there, that's fine by me. However, I noticed you didn't answer my question, and it's an important point. Do you understand the difference between a scientific theory and the general use of the word theory?

Moving on to a different topic. I was wondering if you would be willing to elaborate on what you meant when you said: "I also saw how religion crumbles under scrutiny, especially the Bible." Could you please provide some specifics on this?

Sure, I'll work on a post when I have a break, right now I have a lot of work to catch up on. For now if you want to look at the thread "The Disunity of the Bible" it links to a podcast where the hosts have done a thorough job of going through and pointing out glaring inconsistencies in the Bible.

[Tiberius]

Actually, just to correct something Eilonnwy:

It's fairly simple, you posit a claim, you have the burden of proof. You reject a claim, then you don't have the burden of proof, it doesn't matter when you you've used the word "believe" or not. Basic logic.

If you posit a claim, you have the burden of proof. If you provide the proof, and someone rejects the claim, they have the burden of proof.

A person who doesn't have the burden of proof has the benefit of assumption, but once the burden of proof is fulfilled, the claimant has the benefit of assumption, and the burden of proof is passed on (to anyone who disputes the claim further).