The burden of proof (revisited)

Not long ago, I put my original post about the burden of proof on reddit.com. The comments were... surprising to me. However, as I respect the /r/Atheism crowd (they know more than I do), I feel obligated to address their criticism.

Before anything else, I admit that we can construct a deity that might exist. The agnostic atheist position is correct for that reason.
"If you can't even define it, discussion or belief seem pointless."
In my original post, I used the dictionary definition of 'god'

God
    1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
    2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.


I insist this definition of 'god' has evidence against it. We can accept the burden of proof and demonstrate this 'creator and ruler of the universe' doesn't exist.

Let's take a look at the scientifically verifiable claims made in the bible and at the evidence against them.

1. In the beginning god created the heavens and the earth.
- The universe is 13,7 billion years old
- The earth is 4,5 billion years old

--> The earth was not created in the beginning.

2. Let there be light
- By the time the earth was formed (through accretion), the stars were in the sky and the sun is about as old as the earth (or the other way around)

 --> There was light before the earth was formed.

3. Firmament
-  This supposedly solid structure doesn't exist. Rockets fly right through it.

 --> The firmament doesn't exist.

 See the Skeptics Annotated Bible for more.


Image source: Militant Atheist

 As there is scientific evidence against the core beliefs of the bible, any rational person should reject the possibility of this particular deity existing. Period.

 When people argue that the bible is not a science book, they admit that the scientifically verifiable claims of the bible are nonsense.

 The most common defense of Yahweh is the "God of the gaps" argument. We don't know what caused the Big Bang therefore a deity did it. That's perfectly okay with me, but that deity is not Yahweh.

Edit: I found a nice video with this exact same argument by Carl Sagan.
Another take on Genesis 1:1 is this textual analysis.

Comments

  1. Inari el zorro19 October 2015 at 06:04

    Your argument makes most sense. I tend to say that there are two kinds of deities:
    * the ones that certainly don't exist - those that are described as being able to interact with the real universe, and thus are subject to evidence
    * the ones that don't even matter to begin with - those elusive "can't be proved to not exist" that stay outside the universe, without being able to effect any change (or even observing it, because observation requires material interaction)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Elholandesdelacasa28 October 2015 at 04:47

    Thanks Inari.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ellen5e11 November 2016 at 12:00

    And third...a God who both created AND interacts with His creation as He pleases.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ellen5e11 November 2016 at 12:37

    How is it you can logically INSIST without having absolute certainty that the timing and order and methods are truthfully as you assume? How do you counter the Creator's OWN REASONS of when, how and why ...and then presume that your assumptions in some way negate the #Truth? Who Truthfully KNOWS when, where, how and why better than the ONE doing it? #Think
    Is it reasonable for the finite to explain the infinite? Does one attempt to define the timing, order and methods of the supernatural by the laws of the natural? Or how does the mortal finite come to understand the eternal omniscient UNLESS the superior's knowledge is transmitted to the one with inferior knowledge?
    The ignorant cannot MAKE Truth, can they? They can only receive the truth, or deny it. They either accept God's Word for God's reasons or contrive UNtruth.
    As Bible shows, God's ways are HIS. God's ways are not man's ways nor God's thoughts man's thoughts. However we can attain the Spirit of God to transform our thoughts in union with God's through God's Spirit working God's will in us..."Be Holy as I am holy" & "Love the LORD your GOD with all your heart soul mind and strength" & "love your neighbor as yourself". Jesus testified to physically to the Truth...among men...living example. Modeled and lived out was the power of God's Word.
    Accepting these truths is freeing and brings glory to God and joy to our souls fulfilling the purpose for which we exist. I wish you the #Truth #Love #Peace and #Joy that God intends for all those who desire meaningful life both here and forever. đŸ’•Ellen5e

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Elholandesdelacasa17 November 2016 at 08:31

      Hi Ellen! Thanks for taking the time to respond.

      The scientific method requires measurements. Measurements result in hypothesis. Hypothesis are tested. Predictions are made. Predictions are tested.

      Once scientists can make accurate predictions, one has to assume the hypothesis are correct (for the time being).

      That's how we can insist that Genesis is incorrect. The scientific evidence is against it.

      Delete

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