Good arguments against the existence of God and the supernatural are worth sharing twice. So here's what I shared a few years ago in "No dragon in the garage. Also, no God in heaven."
This morning I came across this excellent rebuttal to those who ask atheists like me to prove that God doesn't exist in the course of re-reading Paul Singh's book, "The Great Illusion."
As I repeatedly point out on this blog, the burden of proof is on those who claim that God does exist. This should be obvious, but sometimes obviousness needs to be conveyed via an analogy to those who refuse to see the obvious.
Since there's no evidence of a dragon in anybody's garage, fantasized garage-dwelling dragons have no effect on the world or any people other than those who believe they exist. They are a non-entity for everybody else who understands how crazy it is to believe that dragons can inhabit garages.
Likewise, since there's no evidence of God or the supernatural, a belief that these entities exist leads to absolutely no difference to the world or to anyone who doesn't believe in these fantasies. Meaning, a world without a belief in God looks exactly the same as a world with a belief in God.
Again, the only difference a false belief makes is in those whose mind holds the belief.
Sure, some people feel a need to point out the falsity of beliefs, just as fact checkers feel a need to point out the many lies of Donald Trump. But otherwise, a belief in something that doesn't exist has no effect on the world, since that thing doesn't exist except as a mental concept.
(Trump lies do exist, so they have an effect on the world.)
Here's how Singh explains this Carl Sagan analogy.
Carl Sagan's tale of "A fire breathing Dragon lives in my garage" is a perfect example of how those who make scientifically unfalsifiable claims try to shift the burden of proof to others by special pleading at every step of the way.
Someone tells you there is a dragon in his garage. So you take a look in the garage and you don't see any dragon. He tells you the dragon is invisible.
So you decide to spread some flour on the garage floor to detect the dragon's foot prints, but there are none. And so it goes. Your friend will always have an excuse as to why there is no evidence that there is a dragon in his garage.
You tell your friend that there is no evidence that there is a dragon in his garage. But he tells you that you can't prove there isn't. And he is right, you can't prove there isn't a dragon in the garage.
But that is precisely the point of Sagan's tale. The burden of proof is not on you to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the person who makes the claims about the dragon. It is his responsibility to provide evidence for the dragon.
And he can't provide any because there isn't any. And you can't prove his claim wrong because his claim is unfalsifiable. And it is unfalsifiable because it makes no predictions about what you will perceive when you look in the garage.
Such unfalsifiable claims are nonsense.
This is how all superstition, pseudo-science, and religion works. Believers in such things make extraordinary claims that cannot be falsified. And when they are forced to admit that they don't have any evidence to support their claims, they respond by saying that you cannot prove that they are wrong.
But, again, the burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim about miracles or UFOs or whatever to provide evidence for their claim. The burden of proof is not on the other person to prove them wrong — something that is absolutely impossible to do given that their claim is unfalsifiable.
The take home lesson is that we should never believe a claim to be true simply because no one can prove it to be false. Theologians are experts at this kind of nonsense.
Are delusional people making things up? Evidence shows that the human brain is universally delusional in many ways and therefore people who promote superstitions are not particularly more delusional than the rest of us.
It is just that examples of religious delusions are rather classic examples of how the brain creates illusions and delusions. The use of logic and scientific skepticism is a skill that can be used to overcome the limitations of our own brains.
This skill is like any other skill such as learning to play the piano. It involves training in metacognition as well as basic education in all basic sciences.
Discover more from Church of the Churchless
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hi Brian!
If I want to prove to you God exists the burden of proof is most certainly on me.
If you want to prove God doesn’t exist, the burden of proof is on you.
The fact people believe both of these things, and these beliefs are an important part of their lives is enough for me to accept that we are all doing the best we can, and so long as we aren’t imposing on each other, respect and good will are the civil and educated lessons.
‘Life is a foreign language.
Everyone mispronounces it.’
Mom, “Now that we all have our soft serve ice cream cones don’t we all feel better?”
5 year old Brian, “Yah… But still Mom, every time we go there’s no magical Queen of the Dairy!”
“Every time. No DairyQueen! they lie!”
Mom :” Now son, just eat your ice cream before it melts.”
“The take home lesson is that we should never believe a claim to be true simply because no one can prove it to be false.”
Singh’s entire commentary is a moot point because in each case, one couldn’t have believed otherwise,
As you pointed out on another blog post, we are “addicted to explanations” and give reasons for why we acted in a particular way. We also give reasons for why we hold certain beliefs and don’t hold other beliefs, invoking things like reason, logic, falsifiability, scientific skepticism, superstition, pseudo-science, metacognition, etc.
But remember, we couldn’t have believed otherwise, just as we couldn’t have acted otherwise. Therefore, none of these are the reason for beliefs and thinking they are is yet another illusion in a long line of brain-generated illusions.
Of course, the believing of this illusion and the failure to see that is an illusion couldn’t have been otherwise either. And if one “overcomes” illusion, it has nothing to do with the use of logic and scientific skepticism, but only because it also couldn’t have been otherwise.
But, again, the burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim about miracles or UFOs or whatever to provide evidence for their claim,
That’s certainly true for purported “garage dragons” or UFO
theories. But mystics can’t invite the curious to a lab demo.
There are no “moon rocks” from inner journeys.
So they only testify to what they’ve experienced as the result of
meditative discipline. They assert everyone has the potential to
duplicate their experience. For most, it’s no walk in the park of
course.
It can take years or more commonly decades to reverse habits.
There’re no guarantees of inner visions. No time table for success.
But the health benefits of meditation are well documented even
so.
Therefore mystic claims are an invitation to follow a path that
can impact lives beneficially. They don’t crusade for converts,
or absurdly claim any demonstrable proof for others of the
results of meditation. It can only be experienced.
If someone tries and fails to succeed at it, he can discard the
attempt. He can’t extrapolate his failed attempt and make
presumptive claims about the falsity of the mystic discipline
however. Or brand it a “cult”; its teachers, charlatans.
Then the burden of proof is on him.
–
A person who is bound by time cannot understand what is beyond it, no matter how intelligent she or he is claimed to be.
–
But
–
0*1=not 1
–
Who believes Nothing makes something is just a low low low IQ moron
and a fool
777
Ah! Belief in God. If only such beliefs didn’t carry with them so much division and conflict, they might be tolerable. Okay, belief in God has its consolations but the downside sadly is awash with conflict, division and human rights abuses. In fact, most of the beliefs I am aware of at this moment don’t appear to bring much togetherness to the human race at all – except to the groups who share the same belief – but, on second thoughts, even that is not true. I’m thinking of the problems within the Catholic Church clergy and the different schools of Christian thought. And the on-going conflict with the Shia and Sunni Moslems.
Looking at the history of religion and today’s conflict ridden religious based troubles, religious belief has all the hallmarks of failed institutions. There again, to look at any belief whether political, economical, race, gender etc. division and conflict is rife. It seems that where thought is subjected to a rigid framework – belief – it works against our best interests. Perhaps it is ‘our genetic lot’ which we are stuck with that our main impetus is to protect ourselves, not just physically but psychologically through our beliefs, ideas and opinions – and woe to any who disagree!
“But otherwise, a belief in something that doesn’t exist has no effect on the world, since that thing doesn’t exist except as a mental concept.”
Mental concepts have a very powerful impact. Some of them positive : Kindness, fair play, compassion, responsibility, teamwork, No bullying, generosity, innovation, solutions…
Yes the divine Dragon has taught us all important lessons whether we realize it or not.
Does she really exist?
In our heart.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOJ1XmbSKhM
This makes a lot about God / non God more clear
This is just about a little galaxy
and of how preparations for 7 chakra individuals are done
It makes such a good comparison with a flower and fruit farm
Enjoy the moment , . . tomorrow things have changed
And think about the harvest of Should in all this
millions p/day bound IN ,
myriads of planets, . . . myriads of Galaxies , . . . together just a peanut
I would almost say : the whole in carnation chaurasi idea In all this
is also a peanut
HE is so much bigger than that
HE has zillions of these constructs , it never ends
777
Here is a comment copied from the many there
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOJ1XmbSKhM
Ani mal
il y a 1 jour
I have been to many presentations at this museum and to say she is presenting to layman is a correct assessment.
These presentations are only attended by interested lay-people like me, who have paid actual money to hear these presentations. That is not to say I am not educated. My degrees are in Biology and my Masters is in Multimedia Technologies…but I still attend because the presentations are presented in a style that everyone can understand. Her manner of talking truly is due to living in New York but her style of presenting the facts, is entirely due to talking to laypeople. The audience came for a show Not an education lecture as you would get in a college class. They are likely to be people with a passing love of astronomy, whatever their day job may be, who paid their 10 bucks to learn what the latest news is in observed astronomy. They aren’t an audience of physicists nor astronomers, but hobbyists and potential Museum Donors ($$$) who need things explained in simple terms, and WOW’ed by what the museum staff are doing, or could be doing with more funding.
My pont is when you see the ‘sense’ of it
collecting Love ( for ever )
the anti-theism might fade away
777
All of these blog entries and subsequent comments show that there still isn’t a genuine recognition of the implications of a deterministic universe. We apparently just give it lip service.
All of these arguments for or against anything are entirely moot. But that’s understandable because these moot arguments, not knowing they are moot arguments, and even my moot argument are all determined and couldn’t have been otherwise.
@ JB – so what’s your opinion? Did you decide to be born and do you know when you are going to pass away! There are people I have known who have known this!!!!
I don’t find anything you have wrote to be of any value – you write well and are this educated. Please don’t debase what Spencer writes- he knows more than you!
Nothing new under the sun- the scientists are now debating whether they actually caught gravitational waves! They don’t KNOW! Science is not the answer!!!!
Furthermore – the knowledge that Spencer tries to express is personal and a personal treasure. No evidence is required to be given out- if you want to know – try it yourself.
Moot, boot or toot arguments! Join a university debating club. None of us will give our treasures away!
My comment was not directed at Spencer.
My point is only to demonstrate that these blog posts and subsequent comments seem to ignore the implications of a deterministic universe.
Determinism, which I believe is true, carries within it an intrinsic contradiction because it’s apparent trueness cannot be the reason why I hold the belief.
I find this incredibly interesting and ripe for discussion and debate, yet there doesn’t seem to be any interest.
“Join a university debating club”
Fair enough, this is obviously the wrong place for discussing these kinds of subtle, abstract notions.
Hi JB
What position would you like to debate?
Or, what view are you looking to argue against?
Determinism is the ultimate case for God. If it’s a closed system, everything can be predicted down to the grains of sand on Proxima Centauri b.
Choice, free will, random occurrence without cause are the case for humankind.
Both exist.
@ JB – apologies – I was out of order. I am not much a man of debate – but truth!
No one has found answers in debate – it’s another path entirely to the one I seek.
– God would not be God if HE could be defined
-Yes ‘determineder’ c’est français and it means that there is a desired (even mandatory) outcome
but with only few rules – as few as possible
and for free will the same
LOVE is determiné,
How could it be something else
Nobody can propose other stuff that would please a so powerful Being
that possess everything
including Love because HE is that
Actually the queste for one’s Soul (the target/goal)
goes parallel with the quest to save the planet
temporale both seem lost
but we have to calculate that there are so much times, many big bangs equivalents
Both can be saved by vegetarian
at least a good start
Here even Brian agrees
It’s nice to discuss but above I paraphrased that this is only possible
by getting rid of time
Some meditation systems have exactly that as a target
You can join in any way you want
by stop your thought during 2 minutes , being awake
Next the real discussion might be possible if one wants
after the gantry shocking experience
777
This leitmotiv is also in many science fiction romans
like A E van Vogt
where the main stupid character finds out that he is and always was the ruler
Myself find it greatly humanistic that in our case : iy is the same
and Complaints to God we must address deep in our real self
not the even quantum AI stuff but the Love sometimes deep in us
Determinism seems like a good subject to discuss. Don’t know much about it so will have to do some research.
I just wrote a blog post about the subject JB and Spence Tepper raised — the subtleties of determinism. Read and comment (just leave God and supernaturalism out of your comment.) See:
https://churchofthechurchless.com/2018/11/lets-explore-the-subtleties-of-determinism
(just leave God and supernaturalism out of your comment.
THEY CAN’T, Boss
777
I can understand the frustration and resulting denial of “God” after 40-50 or more years of looking for It and not finding It.
That doesn’t change anything.
Saying there is no God is like an H2O molecule in a river saying there is no water.
The God you are having trouble seeing is where you look from, but if you try to turn your mind around and look to where you think you are looking from, it’s not there either because whatever YOU look AT is never it.
It is the looking.
See ya
tucson
Thanks for reminding me why I like to look over comment on this blog. Simple, to the point. Speaking to both head and heart. I like it.
Cheers mate
@Tim
Speaking to both head and heart. I like it.
_________
and never expected such an highlight from Vegas
@Tucson
Saying there is no God is like an H2O molecule in a river saying there is no water.
_________
AND THIS IS SIMPLY GREAT :
@WoooW
It is the looking.
See ya . . . Cheers Mates
Quote JB: “Determinism, which I believe is true, carries within it an intrinsic contradiction because it’s apparent trueness cannot be the reason why I hold the belief. — I find this incredibly interesting and ripe for discussion and debate, yet there doesn’t seem to be any interest.”
There is, actually, JB. Sure, let’s discuss this!
I know your views on intentionality, basis your earlier comments, and I’m guessing your recent comments are basically an indirect application of those views, playing Devil’s Advocate as it were, and stretching the point to its logical end to show up the cracks. 🙂 Close? 🙂
Irrespective: The free will subject piques my interest no end — especially Brian’s treatment of it — and I let the recent posts of Brian’s on this go by without comment only by because I’d been very pressed for time of late. Still am, actually, but I don’t think I can resist spending some time here, now, and putting down my thoughts!
I think this whole issue, this whole apparent paradox, is no more, really, than a semantic confusion.
But I see Brian’s put up a fresh dedicated post around this very discussion, so let’s take this there, shall we?