Is there anything skeptics can't reduce

[Iacchus]

I'm quite sure you would venture to say that. You wouldn't perhaps venture to support it, would you? I didn't think so.

The Universe didn't just come out of nowhere did it? ... Do raindrops just fall? Or, do they fall from the sky? Or, could it be that the sky was created at the time they began to fall?

Uh huh. You use imaginary notions to justify more imaginary notions. What a simple world you live in.

Indeed, you may have to employ your imagination in order to try and understand this.

 

[Tricky]

The Universe didn't just come out of nowhere did it?

There's no way to tell. It might have. In spite of numerous claims about your knowledge, and your fallacious arguments from personal incredulity, you certainly have never presented any evidence for anything that pre-existed the universe.

Do raindrops just fall? Or, do they fall from the sky?

Technically, they fall from clouds. Rarely do they fall from a cloudless sky. But your analogy, like all analogies you have ever presented here, is flawed. The universe is not a raindrop.

Indeed, you may have to employ your imagination in order to try and understand this.

Oh I understand what you are saying, but I also understand it is nothing more than Icchybabble. You're not that deep, Iacchus. You couldn't drown a suicidal lemming in the depth of your knowledge.

 

[Mercutio]

We also have a deeply embedded instinct that has co-evolved with our intelligence that enables us to tap into intangible aspects of nature. The problem has been, and still is, reconciling that with the natural world - if such a thing is even possible. A lot of stuff that evidence is called out for here has fallen under the definition of myth, folklore, or whatnot for centuries; people in those times had little practical use for nonsense and were required to use critical thinking skills on a daily basis. They also had to directly deal with the elements, uncertainties, and an unforgiving mother nature - so it's important to differentiate between the context of possibility and the context of someone making a dubious public claim.

Two thoughts on this--First...we do have perceptual biases which are geared toward seeing relationships between things in our environments. This is not so much "tapping into intangibles" as very quickly drawing conclusions from minimal evidence. The ability to see things that go together is so important that we err on the side of seeing connections even when there are none; this is one of the origins of superstition, of full moon myths, of good luck charms. These social-cognitive heuristics can be (and have been) studied experimentally. We can see that not only are we able to see very subtle relationships...we are also able to "see" relationships that simply do not exist.

Second...Science, and more generally the systematic and critical examination of evidence, allows us to see many more things than we are able to see without it. If we can get a hint of an intangible in our ordinary experience, we can put it into sharp focus through systematic observation. If it is real, science allows us to see it better. If it is not real, science allows us to show that our perceptual bias was responsible, and that there is nothing really there. It is not the case that something can be seen better through casual observation than through systematic observation. It may seem that way, though, if the "something" is actually an artifact of the process of casual observation.

This is what happens with Iacchus's notions. He does not want to learn about dreams or consciousness, because the systematic observation will show that the experiences he treats as bedrock are actually the result of his perceptual processes, and are not evidence at all. He wants to be able to "know", but rather than wishing to let the evidence lead him to knowledge, he has decided what he wants to know, and tries to amass evidence to support that. The only way to do this is to ignore physics, biology, psychology, cosmology....and instead, circularly argue that "I am here, and I couldn't be here unless I was right about everything, therefore I must be right about everything."

 

[ruach1]

Without commenting on anything else...this statement is false. Without evidence, there is no way of knowing if something is true or false. There is no reason to believe it; no reason to disbelieve it...but of course the burden of proof is theirs. There is no reason to posit the existence of something without evidence; the claimant must provide evidence for it.

According to Robo, a claim that was made prior to the empirical method is to be regarded as unbelievable since there is no evidence for it. But you say there is no reason to disbelieve it since we have no evidence for such disbelief. I would align with you in this regard because, as is the nature of the OP, I don't think the hard-hearted need to reduce and reduce and reduce based upon "evidence" is healthy.

Now here's a sticking point with me. Theists claim God exists. Atheists claim God does not exist. Why is the burden of proof on the theists and not on the atheists?

For example, Randi claims that certain paranormal phenomena does not exist, and he has been a steadfast champion in proving his claims. (Exposing Popoff is to this day one of the reasons why I'm following Randi's work and writing on this Forum.) Additionally, if seated with him, he will do an excellent job of reasoning away the existence of God. In each case, Randi "prooves" a negative: paranormal healing powers do not exist--God does not exist.

Why then is "the burden of proof" always "theirs" when Randi has been shouldering the burden of proof for the negative for so long? What am I not seeing here?

 

[Iacchus]

The only way to do this is to ignore physics, biology, psychology, cosmology....and instead, circularly argue that "I am here, and I couldn't be here unless I was right about everything, therefore I must be right about everything."

I don't claim to be right about everything, just certain things. We wouldn't want to start another strawman now would we?

 

[Tricky]

According to Robo, a claim that was made prior to the empirical method is to be regarded as unbelievable since there is no evidence for it. But you say there is no reason to disbelieve it since we have no evidence for such disbelief. I would align with you in this regard because, as is the nature of the OP, I don't think the hard-hearted need to reduce and reduce and reduce based upon "evidence" is healthy.

Now here's a sticking point with me. Theists claim God exists. Atheists claim God does not exist. Why is the burden of proof on the theists and not on the atheists?

For example, Randi claims that certain paranormal phenomena does not exist, and he has been a steadfast champion in proving his claims. (Exposing Popoff is to this day one of the reasons why I'm following Randi's work and writing on this Forum.) Additionally, if seated with him, he will do an excellent job of reasoning away the existence of God. In each case, Randi "prooves" a negative: paranormal healing powers do not exist--God does not exist.

Why then is "the burden of proof" always "theirs" when Randi has been shouldering the burden of proof for the negative for so long? What am I not seeing here?

See the red highlight? That is an incorrect statement. That's what you're not seeing. Few atheists claim God does not exist. This particular straw man is in the armory of every anti-atheist statement you will ever hear.

Most atheists, and almost all of them here, say there is no evidence for God, therefore they decline to believe in Him. They are not making a claim. They have no burden of proof. This point is difficult for theists to grasp, and indeed for most nonbelievers. Up until only a few years ago, I thought the same thing, which is why I called myself an agnostic. I simply didn't know the correct definition.

And Randi has never claimed to prove that paranormal things do not exist. He has always said that there is no evidence for them.

 

[Iacchus]

There's no way to tell. It might have. In spite of numerous claims about your knowledge, and your fallacious arguments from personal incredulity, you certainly have never presented any evidence for anything that pre-existed the universe.

Might I suggest that whatever it was that gave rise to the Big Bang represented a "steady state?"

Technically, they fall from clouds. Rarely do they fall from a cloudless sky. But your analogy, like all analogies you have ever presented here, is flawed. The universe is not a raindrop.

So, we can attribute both clouds and rain to the sky which preceded them. Interesting.

Oh I understand what you are saying, but I also understand it is nothing more than Icchybabble. You're not that deep, Iacchus. You couldn't drown a suicidal lemming in the depth of your knowledge.

Yes, 1 + 1 = 2. Only the "knowledgeable" would try and obscure the issue by saying, "No ... It does not in binary."

 

[Mercutio]

Now here's a sticking point with me. Theists claim God exists. Atheists claim God does not exist. Why is the burden of proof on the theists and not on the atheists?

Depends on who you ask. Most atheists I know simply say that there is no evidence of a god, and no reason to believe in an entity for which there is no evidence. This is different from a claim of "there is no god". Indeed, it would be a rather silly thing to make a positive claim for the non-existence of one particular thing amongst all the possible things for which there is no evidence. The idea of equal burden of proof for this is rather silly, because there is no reason to prove the non-existence of something for which no evidence exists.

We do not ask christians to prove the non-existence of Zeuss, or Odin, or Thor, or Ra, or any number of others. The default position of "no evidence" is where we begin. From there, if someone makes a claim of the existence of something, they bear the burden of providing evidence.

 

[Iacchus]

See the red highlight? That is an incorrect statement. That's what you're not seeing. Few atheists claim God does not exist. This particular straw man is in the armory of every anti-atheist statement you will ever hear.

No, they just argue for the "default position" and claim everyone's a lunatic for not agreeing with them.

 

[Mercutio]

I don't claim to be right about everything, just certain things. We wouldn't want to start another strawman now would we?

No need for a strawman. The "evidence" for the "certain things" is the circular "because I am here, and aware" sort. That is foolish enough that we do not need a strawman.

 

[Mercutio]

Might I suggest that whatever it was that gave rise to the Big Bang represented a "steady state?"

Suggest all you want; wake us up when you have evidence to support your suggestion. You have none. Don't be sad; neither does anyone else.

 

[Mercutio]

No, they just argue for the "default position" and claim everyone's a lunatic for not agreeing with them.

Now who is using strawmen?

Do you understand why it is the default position? It has been explained to you. If you disagree, please say why.

Who is claiming lunacy? (and if you are referring specifically to labels that get attached to you, consider that there may be more reasons, if any have read your book.)

 

[Iacchus]

No need for a strawman. The "evidence" for the "certain things" is the circular "because I am here, and aware" sort. That is foolish enough that we do not need a strawman.

I'm afraid I don't comprehend? ... How does this make me "Mr. Know-it-all?"

 

[Iacchus]

Now who is using strawmen?

Do you understand why it is the default position? It has been explained to you. If you disagree, please say why.

Who is claiming lunacy? (and if you are referring specifically to labels that get attached to you, consider that there may be more reasons, if any have read your book.)

Just give folks a chance to make one or two posts here. I'm sure someone will agree with this pretty quick.

I am not delusional, nor am I a lunatic ... at least not with respect to the claims that I make.

 

[Tricky]

Might I suggest that whatever it was that gave rise to the Big Bang represented a "steady state?"

Suggest away. We will treat your suggestion with the respect that unsupported suggestions deserve.

Yes, 1 + 1 = 2. Only the "knowledgeable" would try and obscure the issue and say, "No ... It does not in binary."

LOL. Congratulations. You've gotten the hang of pre-school math. It is a pity you decided to stop learning at such an early age.

No, they just argue for the "default position" and claim everyone's a lunatic for not agreeing with them.

One thing that atheists do claim to know is their own beliefs. No matter how many times people try to tell them what "atheists claim", they are still the authority on that topic. All the straw in the world won't change that.

 

[Iacchus]

Suggest away. We will treat your suggestion with the respect that unsupported suggestions deserve.

LOL. Congratulations. You've gotten the hang of pre-school math. It is a pity you decided to stop learning at such an early age.

One thing that atheists do claim to know is their own beliefs. No matter how many times people try to tell them what "atheists claim", they are still the authority on that topic. All the straw in the world won't change that.

Well, at least I don't need somebody to tell me how to think. And no, Mercutio, that does not make me "Mr. Know-it-all."

 

[ruach1]

See the red highlight? That is an incorrect statement. That's what you're not seeing. Few atheists claim God does not exist. This particular straw man is in the armory of every anti-atheist statement you will ever hear.

Most atheists, and almost all of them here, say there is no evidence for God, therefore they decline to believe in Him. They are not making a claim. They have no burden of proof. This point is difficult for theists to grasp, and indeed for most nonbelievers. Up until only a few years ago, I thought the same thing, which is why I called myself an agnostic. I simply didn't know the correct definition. And Randi has never claimed to prove that paranormal things do not exist. He has always said that there is no evidence for them.

Atheists do claim God does not exist. That is the meaning of the word a-not or no, the-god, God, ist-practioner of, believer in.

Agnostics on the other hand (a-not or no, gnosis-knowledge) believe there is not sufficient knowledge to believe in God so they are inclined toward not believing in any gods or God.

And this word play of "I'm an agnostic so I don't have to prove my beliefs whereas the rest of you have to toe the line I draw wherever and whenever I so desire" is the same type of intellectual quibbling and duck and dodge manuevers that woos use to justify their unprovable positions.

You got a belief? God doesn't exist--the true meaning of atheism? Fine. Prove it. Can't? Then don't demand others prove their beliefs when you can't do it yourself. (You not meaning you Tricky but you as in the general sense.)

Randi never claims paranormal phenomenon don't exist? Even a cursory reading of the Commentary Archives will show that statement is incorrect.

 

[Iacchus]

No, they just argue for the "default position" and claim everyone's a lunatic for not agreeing with them.

One thing that atheists do claim to know is their own beliefs. No matter how many times people try to tell them what "atheists claim", they are still the authority on that topic. All the straw in the world won't change that.

Yeah, well I should probably qualify this by saying only certain atheists are like this ... in particular, those who evangelize their atheism and like to argue about it.

 

[Mercutio]

Atheists do claim God does not exist. That is the meaning of the word a-not or no, the-god, God, ist-practioner of, believer in.

By your own analysis, this should mean "not a believer in god" rather than "a believer in 'no god'". And there is a world of difference between the two.

I am an atheist. I do not claim to "know that god does not exist"--the very statement is illogical. I simply do not have any reason to believe in any of the myriad gods that others have believed in over the centuries.

 

[Mercutio]

Well, at least I don't need somebody to tell me how to think. And no, Mercutio, that does not make me "Mr. Know-it-all."

Oh, trust me, I am under no illusion that you know it all. The important thing, though, is that you claim to know, with certainty, something which all of science and logic says is impossible to know. And you wonder why we ask you to support it?