Unproven for lack of evidence. Atheism/Theism

[Enmos]

"Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, either positive or negative, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven (see negative proof).

Taken more generally, the standard of proof demanded to establish any particular conclusion varies with the subject under discussion. Just as there is a difference between the standard required for a criminal conviction and in a civil case, so there are different standards of proof applied in many other areas of life."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof

 

[S.A.M.]

Is that science? Or law?

 

[Enmos]

Is that science? Or law?

Science

 

[S.A.M.]

Science

There is no proof in science. Science never proves anything. This is Science 101.

 

[Enmos]

There is no proof in science. Science never proves anything. This is Science 101.

It's about evidence.
If someone comes up with an extraordinary claim or theory they have to present extraordinary evidence to support it.

 

[S.A.M.]

It's about evidence.
If someone comes up with an extraordinary claim or theory they have to present extraordinary evidence to support it.

What evidence?

A Bayesian inference is used in science everyday, everytime someone formulates a hypothesis. There is no "burden of proof" attached to it. You provide sufficient evidence that it is not false and it is assumed to be so, until it is falsified.

Two important facts:

1. Science describes phenomena, it does not explain them
2. Proof != truth, merely sufficient evidence that is convincing to support your hypothesis at a given time.

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Enmos-First let me say-I need to learn how to do the quote thing like you do. To answer your question, yes. In response to not confronted with a reality, I suggest that by having the concept of a deity and denying it is making a choice to believe deities do not exist.

Sniffy-I'm not trained in any particular science except electricity, most of the self-study/hobby knowledge I've gathered has been in theoretical physics, astronomy, and AI. I like evolution and the big bang theory. I'll take evolution for now.
I wonder how God put life on earth?(input theory of evolution) Neat!

 

[Enmos]

What evidence?

A Bayesian inference is used in science everyday, everytime someone formulates a hypothesis. There is no "burden of proof" attached to it. You provide sufficient evidence that it is not false and it is assumed to be so, until it is falsified.

Two important facts:

1. Science describes phenomena, it does not explain them
2. Proof != truth, merely sufficient evidence that is convincing to support your hypothesis at a given time.

Read this: http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/"Extraordinary_Claims_Require_Extraordinary_Proof"

I'm sure you know all this and that you're just babbling..

 

[S.A.M.]

Read this: http://skepticwiki.org/index.php/"Extraordinary_Claims_Require_Extraordinary_Proof"

I'm sure you know all this and that you're just babbling..

That only applies to testable theories.

And its by no means a scientific paradigm, merely a skeptical one.

The normal standards for scientific "proof" are often quite relaxed; for example, the standard p-value required of published papers is usually 0.05 (5%), meaning that about one experiment in twenty may spuriously achieve this level of "success." However, as the experiments (and their implications) become more and more important, it becomes critical to confirm the proofs before acting on the implications, simply because the claims themselves would require such a wholesale revision of science, technology, and philosophy.

^^^ this shows how much faith scientists have in p values, as if statistical significance was the only concept that made any data meaningful.

Just look at the number of contradictory studies with a p value of 0.0001

 

[Enmos]

Enmos-First let me say-I need to learn how to do the quote thing like you do.

Press the button with "quote" on it at the top left corner of the post you want to quote

To answer your question, yes.

You mean the Christianity or "any of the other three things" question ? If so, which one do you believe in ?

In response to not confronted with a reality, I suggest that by having the concept of a deity and denying it is making a choice to believe deities do not exist.

No, I just don't believe anything grossly absurd without any evidence to at all (no offense).
It's not like we've all met God in person and then just choose not to believe in Him. He is nowhere in sight and there is no evidence that he ever was either. Why would I believe such claims ?

 

[Enmos]

That only applies to testable theories.

A theory has to be testable.

 

[S.A.M.]

A theory has to be testable.

Of course, for science. Science cannot describe what it cannot test. Not for logic or law or ethics or philosophy or religion.

 

[Enmos]

Of course, for science. Science cannot describe what it cannot test. Not for logic or law or ethics or philosophy or religion.

So what credibility does an inherently untestable theory have ?
What if my theory is that God does not exist ? You can't test that either.
These kind of "theories" are not exactly helpful in any way.

And, please, show me the logic of Gods existence..

 

[Raithere]

A Bayesian inference is used in science everyday, everytime someone formulates a hypothesis. There is no "burden of proof" attached to it. You provide sufficient evidence that it is not false and it is assumed to be so, until it is falsified.

Bayesian inference regarding the conflict between God and No God hypothesis would begin at 50/50 (since there are two hypotheses). Not at the presumption of truth of either.

Of course, it has been argued (quite successfully imo) that this setup is a false dilemma as there are more hypotheses than just the two.

1. Science describes phenomena, it does not explain them

Science is often able to provide explanations of phenomena.

~Raithere

 

[iceaura]

1. Science describes phenomena, it does not explain them

You are sliding between ordinary and technical or specialized or educated language here. Most people would refer to the formulation of a theory or law (scientific sense) as science, and the prediction or explication of a phenomenon by reference to that theory or law as an "explanation" of the phenomenon.

The "description" of the ability to tan as a consequence of Darwinian evolution in a context of vitamin D and UV light factors over time is an explanation, for example. And it is proved, in the sense derived from the old sense of "tested" (same origin as "proof" in booze), by demonstrated consistency with carefully obtained evidence and carefully made argument.

That only applies to testable theories.

In the matter of Deities, believers quite often provide testable theories of their gods. To the extent that theists locate their gods outside the realm of testable theory, science would be irrelevant, of course. That extent is not a given - it is up for debate.

 

[S.A.M.]

Bayesian inference regarding the conflict between God and No God hypothesis would begin at 50/50 (since there are two hypotheses). Not at the presumption of truth of either.

Of course, it has been argued (quite successfully imo) that this setup is a false dilemma as there are more hypotheses than just the two.

Science is often able to provide explanations of phenomena.

~Raithere

Does it prove them?

You are sliding between ordinary and technical or specialized or educated language here. Most people would refer to the formulation of a theory or law (scientific sense) as science, and the prediction or explication of a phenomenon by reference to that theory or law as an "explanation" of the phenomenon.

The "description" of the ability to tan as a consequence of Darwinian evolution in a context of vitamin D and UV light factors over time is an explanation, for example. And it is proved, in the sense derived from the old sense of "tested" (same origin as "proof" in booze), by demonstrated consistency with carefully obtained evidence and carefully made argument.
In the matter of Deities, believers quite often provide testable theories of their gods. To the extent that theists locate their gods outside the realm of testable theory, science would be irrelevant, of course. That extent is not a given - it is up for debate.

Thats your current opinion. With different information tomorrow it could be changed. Thats why its a description, not an explanation.

So what credibility does an inherently untestable theory have ?
What if my theory is that God does not exist ? You can't test that either.
These kind of "theories" are not exactly helpful in any way.

And, please, show me the logic of Gods existence..

Its called using a hammer to change a lightbulb. Or defining jurisprudence or ethics based on scientific testing.

For example:

The natural laws are fixed and unchanging. True or false?

 

[Enmos]

Its called using a hammer to change a lightbulb. Or defining jurisprudence or ethics based on scientific testing.

For example:

The natural laws are fixed and unchanging. True or false?

I have no clue where you are going with this..

But to answer your question, I think so.
At least they are there though..

 

[S.A.M.]

I have no clue where you are going with this..

But to answer your question, I think so.
At least they are there though..

Whats your evidence for that?

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Enmos-all of the above

I didn't realize that suggesting a hypothesis would lead to a debate over how to debate the hypothesis. Should I start a thread asking how to debate a hypothesis?

I was trying to suggest that neither side was provable to a point that they were undeniable. Now... I'm just sort of lost at the moment.

 

[S.A.M.]

Enmos-all of the above

I didn't realize that suggesting a hypothesis would lead to a debate over how to debate the hypothesis. Should I start a thread asking how to debate a hypothesis?

I was trying to suggest that neither side was provable to a point that they were undeniable. Now... I'm just sort of lost at the moment.

I'm giving the scientific basis for your argument. What part are you lost about?