GII’s twelfth complaint truly illuminates their lack of a desire to understand what it is they are criticizing; or at least they make no attempt to harmonize their complaints into a non-contradictory list.
Proof number 12: See The Magic
This next complaint makes several of the same unwarranted presuppositions as in previous proofs. Philosophical naturalism and materialism to name two. GII continues to set up strawman arguments by offering a caricature of an aspect of theism, namely that the records of supernatural events are nothing more than reports of magic. I will not offer my analysis of the historicity of the reports of supernatural events GII offers, since I am not offering a defense of miracles or other supernatural events:
- The Mormon religion contains the magical golden plates, the magical angel, the magical seer stones, the magical ascension of the plates into heaven, etc.
- The Muslim faith contains the magical angel, the magical flying horse, the magical voices, the magical prophet, etc.
- The Christian faith contains the magical insemination, the magical star, the magical dreams, the magical miracles, the magical resurrection, the magical ascension and so on.
What I will point out is GII offers no reason to disbelieve any of the listed claims of “magical” events. Assertions are not evidences. Generally speaking, atheists make the claim to be the thinkers, the intellectual, the ones whose worldview is driven by the evidence. So it comes as a surprise (no, not really) that evidence is not offered for believing all of these events did not take place. Surely there is something which can be offered, after all, whenever a theist makes a claim about God, the supernatural, or miracles evidence is demanded by the skeptic, yet is suspiciously absent from any of GII’s complaints. Remember atheism and naturalism does not win by default. “I don’t believe it” is not an argument.
The focus of my attention with proof number 12 is its contradictory nature of other proofs it had previously offered for believing God is imaginary. Think back to proof number 10: Watch the Offering Plate, where it was precisely the absence of “magic” which led GII to conclude God is imaginary:
Why don’t the ministers and deacons of the church gather together every Sunday morning and pray to Jesus for the money they need? Why doesn’t Jesus answer their prayers? Why do churches have to beg for money from mere mortals when there is an immortal, all-powerful God who should provide anything they ask for?…A Christian might say, “God does answer the minister’s prayers — he sends people to give money to the church!”…If God were answering the prayers of the minister, there would be no need for the offering plate. God would provide the money that the church needs, not people.
Here in proof number 10 we see GII use the absence of a supernatural event to prove God does not exist, and in fact this is a vacuous assertion and I address why their complaint does nothing to advance their case in The Complaint Department Is Closed #10. So why is this point important? It exposes the internal inconsistencies within the reasoning of GII. It shows they are attempting to hedge their bets so to speak. On the one hand, absence of supernatural and miraculous events prove God is imaginary, and on the other, claims of supernatural and miraculous events in history also prove God is imaginary. They rig the rules of the game in their favor by artificially creating a no-win scenario for the theist, which itself is intellectually dishonest.
Sifting Reality 
“What I will point out is GII offers no reason to disbelieve any of the listed claims of “magical” events. Assertions are not evidences.”
Am I to believe that you are asking for evidence to not believe in a supernatural claim?
I think you have it backwards, my friend.
Let’s examine this carefully:
Christianity asserts many claims, two of which are:
1. Immaculate conception.
2. Resurrection of the dead.
No “proof” is required for those who say these events did NOT happen.
The burden of proof lies with the person stating it as fact and asserting it to be true.
What evidence say you?
What I and any philosopher asks is when one makes a claim the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. In your case, you seem to be under the impression that saying a/the resurrection did not happen is not a claim and requires giving no reasons for believing your claim. But you are not – not saying something. You are in fact offering a proposition, that a/the resurrection did not happen, a claim which carries a burden of proof.
You seem to be mistaken when you say that positing that a thing did not take place, you carry no burden. It is not the case that only offering claims which posit a thing did happen or does exist is the only one with a burden. This is not true. You are stating as fact a/the resurrection did not happen. If however you are saying nothing at all, then no response from me is required, since you have said nothing. Atheism and naturalism are not the default positions. I know you believe they are, but that also is a claim which carries a burden of proof. This is why professional atheist philosophers when debating do not claim God does not exist, but rather that it is unlikely God exists, they know they have a burden of proof, they and you are making a claim.
FYI, I am assuming you are referring to Jesus’ conception in 1. However “Immaculate Conception is a Roman Catholic term used for Mary as being conceived without sin in order to birth Jesus as God incarnate. I am not Catholic, there is no way to prove or disprove this concept, it is not a biblical one and I have no need to defend it.
As far as offering proof for a/the resurrection, there are reports documented, and collected in the New Testament, the Gospels. Of course you presumably feel they ought to be disqualified, and for that you must offer reasons. But an appeal to the historical record is offered as one evidence for the event.
Ok, we’ll get to your beliefs in a moment, but for now let’s discuss this about something neither one of us believe in – Mormonism.
If someone came to you and said that the magical golden plates were the source from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon and you replied “No, those golden plates never existed and Mormonism is just a made up religion…”, your saying that the burden of proof lies with you proving that the golden plates didn’t exist? Wrong.
The default position is that no plates ever existed and the ones asserting that they do have to prove it so. They cannot just simply claim their belief as truth and then assert that anyone who sees differently must prove otherwise.
Let me see if I can help you see where I think your misunderstanding is. There is no default position once a proposition is offered. In the case of the golden plates, before the claim of the plates existence is offered, there is no position at all to defend. However once Smith made the claim of the existence of the plates, he and everyone else carries the burden of proof every time thye posit their existence; likewise, now every time someone makes the claim the plates never existed they carry the burden of proof every time they offer that claim.
That is not to say that they must prove a negative, but rather must offer evidences exposing the claims of Smith to be false. For example, pointing out that for their size, made of gold, they would have been impossible to run with for the distance he claimed to, under the conditions he claimed, as well as the many other reasonable challenges to Smith’s claims.
Once any claim is made in any direction, there no longer remains a default position from which one can sit back and make claims with no responsibilities.
“That is not to say that they must prove a negative”
That is exactly what you are saying.
If I say “********!”, I don’t have to justify the negative or try to rationalize why it’s ********. It’s the responsibility of those who assert the position to prove their statement.
By your rationalization, here’s our conversation:
I assert that there is an invisible plane parked just over your head.
You can’t see it, touch it or reach it but I claim that it’s there.
You are telling me that the plane being there is the default position? I hope not.
Are you telling me that the burden of proof lies with you trying to prove what isn’t there? How exactly would you even attempt such a futile rebuttal? (I could make claims to refute any rebuttal you have)
Calling “********” is not making a claim, as you put it, but requiring the person that makes the assertion to present evidence to support their ********.
Can you imagine if science worked this way?
I assert that peanut butter causes AIDS. That’s now the default position?
There is no requirement of those who question the claim, only the one who makes it.
Just so you know, next time you use profanity I will not post your comments.
No, I am not asking, nor does the rules of the burden of proof demand you prove a negative. You are definitely wrong on this point. You do not just get to claim “nonsense”, you must provide reasons why you believe my claims are nonsense. If I offer evidence for the existense of God, you do not just get to say “nonsense” until I convince you. It just does not work that way. You must offer reasons why my argument fails.
Your hypothetical dialog shows you do not understand the burden of proof or the idea there is no default position. As soon as you offer the proposition “there is an invisable plane parked over [my] head”, I would then ask “why do you believe there is an invisable plane parked over my head?”. At this point you must provide evidence for your position. Say you offer me 3 reasons to believe it. I can either accept your evidences, reject your evidences, or with hold judgement for further information. If I accept your evidences, the conversation is over. If I reject your evidences, I must now provide reasons for rejecting your evidences. I do not simply get to say, “I win by default until you make me believe you”.
You keep assuming there is a default position, there is none. So no, when you assert PB causes AIDS that is not the default position, and neither is denying PB causes AIDS. The statement “PB causes AIDS” and “PB does not cause AIDS” both carry a burden of proof for whomever utters either phrase. You also fail to understand that rejecting a claim is itself a claim.
Listen to your position:
Me: Theres an invisable plane parked above your head.
You: No theres not.
Me: Why do you say there is no invisable plane above your head?
You: I don’t have to tell you.
In reality, the conversation between two people who both understand the burden of proof goes like this:
Me: Theres an invisable plane parked above your head.
You: Why do you believe there is an invisable plane above me?
Me: Reason 1, Reason 2.
You: I believe you are mistaken and wrong about the plane because: Reason 1 cannot be true because Rebuttal 1; and Reason 2 cannot be true because Rebuttal 2.
I apologize for your offense of words.
Your logic is purely tortured.
Let me expose your flaws:
1. “You do not just get to claim “nonsense”, you must provide reasons why you believe my claims are nonsense.” Sure I do, and I don’t have to provide anything more.
2. “If I offer evidence for the existence of God, you do not just get to say “nonsense” until I convince you.” Sure I do, because to claim evidence for non-existence of anything is futile.
3. “As soon as you offer the proposition “there is an invisable plane parked over [my] head”, I would then ask “why do you believe there is an invisable plane parked over my head?”…. If I reject your evidences, I must now provide reasons for rejecting your evidences.” You don’t need to do so at all. Your reasons for disputing the claims are irrelevant. Then we could just end up arguing about the rejections, not the original assertion.
4. “You keep assuming there is a default position, there is none.” False. The default position is one of skepticism.
5. “You also fail to understand that rejecting a claim is itself a claim.” No, only asserting a new claim is itself a claim. To reject a claim based on any lack of evidence is just a rejection. Again, this happens all the time in science.
1. nonsense.
2. nonsense.
3. nonsense.
4. nonsense.
5. nonsense.
Now what do we do?
Borrowed from wordiq.com, I think this sums it up nicely:
* Philosophical skepticism – a philosophical position in which people choose to critically examine whether the knowledge and perceptions that they have are actually true, and whether or not one can ever be said to have absolutely true knowledge; or
* Scientific skepticism – a scientific, or practical, position in which one questions the veracity of claims, and seeks to prove or disprove them using the scientific method.
Scientific skepticism is related to, but not identical to, philosophical skepticism. Many scientists and doctors who are skeptical of claims of the paranormal are nonetheless not adherents of classical philosophical skepticism. When critics of controversial scientific or paranormal claims are said to be skeptical, this only refers to their taking a position of scientific skepticism.
The term skeptic is now usually used to refer to a person who takes a critical position in a given situation, usually by employing the principles of critical thinking and the scientific method (that is, scientific skepticism) to evaluate the validity of claims and practices. Skeptics view empirical evidence as important, as it provides possibly the best way to determine the validity of a claim.
Notice there is nothing mentioned about a new position regarding the skeptic’s inquiry for evidence, unless a counter-assertion is made. For example, if you say that PB causes AIDS, my response would be “evidence, please”, not ” no, it does not” because that WOULD require evidence.
Your assertion of the existence of supernatural entities require the same treatment. My response is not “no there isn’t”, but rather “evidence, please”.
I guess we’re not really getting anywhere, and until you understand the methodology of skepticism and logical analysis using scientific method you just won’t understand.
I don’t mean to sound condescending, but this helps me understand religious reasoning and its incompatibility with science and the scientific method to gain knowledge of the world we really live in.
Listen, I’m not sure where to go with this. I have never encountered someone who believed they do not need to offer reasons for their positions before. That someone could simply object with no obligation to give reasons why. There is no talking to someone who believes their view is correct by default and need never defend their position. So with that, feel free to comment on other articles, maybe we can make headway sometime.
I never claimed my position was correct at all. I’m just asking you to defend your assertion and you think I must come back with reasons why I disagree with your assertion.
You either didn’t read anything I wrote or can’t comprehend it.
Let me ask you this plain and simple:
Why can’t you just defend your assertion instead of refuting rebuttals?
You claim skepticism is the default position and therefore the correct operating position until proven otherwise; skepticism is your position, therefore you implicitly claim your position is correct. Unless you do not think you’re correct in which case there is no reason for me to believe you either.
Moreover, if you disagree with my positions, you must offer reasons why you disagree. Declaring “nonsense” is insufficient, and serves no purpose other than to show you simply do not like the conclusions I draw but offers no reason to reject my conclusions and adopt yours.
I have not offered any defenses for my religious or theological beliefs on this article nor in the commentary which followed with you, so having made no claims to my beliefs there is nothing to defend until I do. So I am not sure which assertions you think I should be defending.
It also appears you contradict yourself here:
“1. “You do not just get to claim “nonsense”, you must provide reasons why you believe my claims are nonsense.” Sure I do, and I don’t have to provide anything more.
2. “If I offer evidence for the existence of God, you do not just get to say “nonsense” until I convince you.” Sure I do, because to claim evidence for non-existence of anything is futile.”
(You should note that I never claimed you are required to show God does not exist, but rather show where my argument fails; there is a difference, so maybe “you can’t comprehent it.”)
Which contradicts your statement here:
“For example, if you say that PB causes AIDS, my response would be “evidence, please”, not ” no, it does not” because that WOULD require evidence”
On one hand you claim the ability to reject arguments out of hand offering no reason, and in the next you claim that dismissing an argument requires evidence. So where do you actually stand?
John,
With all due respect, you have no idea what you’re talking about. You really should go back to school and take a course on logic.
If you make a claim – any claim, and I respond by saying “What evidence to you have to support that claim?”, how can you then believe in your head that I have taken a definite position on that claim? I find it odd that you personally require reasons to disagree with you.
The main problem with this model is that if you assert A, and I offer B,C and D for reasons to disagree, you’ll more than likely end up waste my time refuting my reasons and say nothing to actually defend your position. Even if you DO successfully refute my reasons, it does nothing to actually prove your assertion.
From your writing, you sound as though you really like to parse words and confuse issues. You like to stay on the offensive and attack anyone who holds a contrary view. The whole point of my discussion is to expose the flawed reasoning of your debate tactics. Again, I’m just simply asking you to defend your assertion.
As for a final thought on “default positions”, I think it’s safe to say I hold magic untrue until proven otherwise and you hold magic true until dis-proven.
It seems I would have a difficult and frustrating time debating anything with you, for you cannot fight “illogic” with logic and “unreason” with reason.
With all due respect, you never understood a single thing I said. I never said you asking for evidence for my claim is a new position. However you declaring my position “nonsense” is. Rejecting my claim, or evidence requires you to provide reasons for rejecting my claim or evidence. You do not simply get to say “nonsense” unchallenged.
Don’t assume what I will do if we were to debate an issue, there are rules for debate and I know them.
I am still waiting for which assertion you are seeking me to defend, you have not yet pointed it out.
Your analogy of magic however isn’t what you claim it is. You are not holding it untrue until proven otherwise. You and I both know “magic” (if you mean slight of hand illusions, and are not being pejoritive of miracle claims) to be mere slight of hand illusions and not some supernatural mysticism. So our default position before being exposed to “the coin is in the other hand” would have been that of agnosticm or ignorance of how the trick was performed. Now we know the coin is in the other hand and we work from the framework of slight of hand rather than a “real magic”.
Your simple lack of understanding with my statement regarding “magic” is the perfect example of what I refer to. You run off on a tangent of illusion and try to confuse the topic, when only a short while ago we were discussing the merits of magical plates within Mormonism and the ridiculous claims of many religious beliefs. Your debate style seems to be one of confusion, like a defense lawyer. When the facts aren’t on your side, just change the debate.
As for defending your assertion, you haven’t made one yet that we are debating. We have only been discussing the format of a debate and your apparent need for reasons to disagree with you.
If you wish to use your beliefs as the source of a debate, I’m all ears.
Which denomination to you follow and what are its tenets?
Well, I disagree I am running off on a tangent, merely explaining why I believe your view of what our outlooks of magic in the situation is and why I think your assessment is wrong. Thats not running off on a tangent, its providing reasons why I think you are mistaken, perhaps I should just have said “nonsense” j/k. To be accurate, we did not get to the discussion of Mormon beliefs since that was the point where you made the assertion that you can simply declare “nonsense” without providing reasons. That is where the divergence began.
Unfortunately, the comment section of this article is not the place for discussing my particular theological beliefs though I have no problem doing so. Also, the church I currently attend is a Reformed Baptist church but I do not hold completely to reformed theology, so there are plenty of things the church affirms which I may not. To not delve into an issue which has little to nothing to do with this article, we can pick this discussion up via email and I can find a place to publish the interaction somewhere on the site here.
ok – where would you like to begin a new thread?
As I proposed earlier, it would be through e-mail corrospondance and then posted in its own place here on the site. I’m not sure what it is you wish to discuss, but the comment section on this article is not the place.
as you wish.
what’s your email address?