The burden of proof – There are zero gods


I was discussing the “burden of proof” the other day. I lost the discussion, but I learned some things.

The burden of proof is a philosophical concept where, whoever asserts something (anything), has to support the claim with evidence. For instance, if you say you own a race-horse, somebody would want to see you with the horse.

Atheists, all over the world, are cautious when discussing the existence of gods. Usually, we say that we reject the claim of gods until there is evidence in favor of gods. That is, the theists will claim there is a god, and the burden of proof lies on the theist.

Atheists, normally, do not say 'there are zero gods', because, then, the burden of proof lies on the atheist to prove there are none, which seems impossible.

As I don't mind making a fool out of myself, I will claim that there are no gods. This means the burden of proof is on me.

What is a god?

My claim relies on the basic concept of gods; they are supreme beings and have supernatural powers. The supernatural is defined as being 'beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature'. Meaning there either is a 'god of the gaps' or the laws of nature do not apply to gods.

The idea of a 'god of the gaps' is not compatible with supreme beings. The gaps in scientific knowledge are getting smaller. Besides, I don't accept that 'not understanding' something means it's 'supernatural'. If it can be repeated and investigated, it will be understood sooner or later... and it will turn out to be natural. “I don't understand therefore supernatural” is a non-sequitur logical fallacy.

The idea of a being that defies the laws of nature is more in line with my idea of what a god should be. In other words; a god, if he exists, should be capable of affecting the natural world in such a way that the laws of nature do not apply while the god doesn't want them to. Levitation, the suspension of gravity, would be a good example of that... only scientists have already developed a method of levitation using lasers.

The only way for a god to demonstrate his existence is by deliberately altering the laws of nature... in a controlled manner. Something that has never been scientifically documented.

The supernatural is “beyond the laws of nature”. That could also mean that gods simply are beyond our scope of observation. Science only observes the natural world. The supernatural world cannot be observed... by definition. What I mean is that, the supernatural, if it exists, will never be observed, as it's beyond any possible future method of observation. The goal-post will move ever away from us. We can observe the atoms on a pinhead, but gods will always elude us.

And that's it. Either gods exist, but can't or won't show themselves. Or gods simply don't exist.

Some people will argue that the possibility of gods still exists, and they are right, but nobody doubts that Harry Potter is fantasy... There is the possibility that Harry Potter is real. You can't rule that out applying the same logic.

---
[Update]
Other fantasies that need debunking as rigorously as Harry Potter are the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot or Ice Giants (this list is near endless, just like the list of gods).

Another view on the god doesn't exist argument, by a philosopher, so expect long words :-) No, no worries, this is really readable.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Formal logic

Genesis 1:1 * describes the following logic Informally Premise P1: God exists. Premise P2: If P1 then "the universe is as old as the earth**". Conclusion C1: The universe is as old as the earth. Formally P1 → C1, P1        C1 This form of logic is called Modus Ponens. The truth of C1 doesn't imply the truth of P1 because there may be other explanations for C1. Lets look at the following classical example Premise P3: It rains Premise P4: If P3 then "the streets are wet". Conclusion C2: The streets are wet There are other possible explanations for wet streets: A cleaning crew just passed, there were games with water, the dikes were broken, etc ... However, we can say that, if the streets are not wet then it doesn't rain. Formally P3 → C2, ¬C2        ¬P3 This form of logic is called Modus Tollens and is the inverse of Modus Ponens. To return to Genesis 1:1. C1 is false and Modus Tollens applies. P1 → C1, ¬C1        ¬
Read more

Abortion

Image
You want your freedom - By Ashvin Harrison with permission In my opinion, the "abortion debate" isn't actually a debate. Some people want to give rights to fetuses that don't have cognitive abilities to exercise those rights while taking away the right of self-determination from women who do have cognitive abilities. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors. Is a fetus a human being? I really don't care if it is, or isn't. Does a fetus have the right to live? No, it doesn't. Human rights begin at birth according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Let's imagine we give a fetus the right to live. How can we determine whether a fetus wants to exercise that right? We can't. That is not a right, but an obligation. These people want to force fetuses onto the world whether these fetuses want, or not. Let's imagine we take away women's right of self-determination, a right recognized in the Universal Declaration of Hu
Read more

Scientism

Image
" Scientism " means misusing the word " science ". You can misuse it either by calling something that can't be measured "scientific", or by claiming that something without sufficient supporting evidence is "scientific". It is a word that's thrown around by people who hardly know what it means and who certainly don't know what the word "science" means or what the scientific method is. "Scientism" is also a word used in philosophy to denote an excess of confidence in science, and has legitimate uses. However, the people who accuse others of "scientism" are not at all interested in philosophy. They are solely interested in delegitimizing the scientific method. They are anti-science . Period. Why are they against science? Is it because they are not scientifically literate? Do they have economic motivations? What worries me is the number of people that are anti-science. There's a war on science g
Read more