Burden of Proof - God or Evolution?

Understanding The Burden Of Proof
The Atheist Experience, 27 April 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6OykvSIawvc

Men speak.
Apes and monkeys - the class of beings we descend from according to Evolution believers (whether they state we still belong to it or not) do not speak.

The Evolution believer considers that ape communications (no three tier system of morpheme-phoneme-phrase) developed to human language (a three tier system of morpheme-phoneme-phrase) gradually.
The Theist considers God gave language to Adam.

Why should the burden of proof be on the more intuitive rather than the more counterintuitive explanation?

2:53 I actually do not hold to the school that as soon as a claim has been made at all, it stands until proven not true.

But I do hold to the school that as soon as a normally credible source of information seems to credibly make a claim, it stands until proven not true.

For instance.
A) a community's tradition about its own history is usually a credible source about its own history - this means, I accept the claims a community makes about its own history, until proven not true (claims about other, adversarial, communities, and their histories are less credible)
B) even if certain sense data can be interpreted otherwise than they seem at first sight, I hold the way they seem at first sight is how they are, until that is proven not true.

Example of the latter, B. I am a Geocentric. Why?

Even if what we see per day and year could be explained by Earth rotating, around herself, each day, and Earth orbitting, around the Sun, each year, what we seem to see is that the Sun orbits us each day at angles slightly changing over the year.

Certain physical factors could in and of themselves nearly certainly nearly only result in the larger body being the centre of a gravity based orbitation of the kind Newton discussed. However, the non-existance of other factors (God and angels come to mind) would be the only way to prove the limitation to such physical factors only.

But a Heliocentric would probably like the school that as soon as a claim has been made at all, it stands until proven not true.

Grabble

"I am a Geocentric. Why?"

Because you're willfully ignorant of all scientific progress. That's the real answer.

God is unfalsifiable by nature. Geocentrism is not. We 100% know it is false by way of literally all evidence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Grabble "Because you're willfully ignorant of all scientific progress. That's the real answer."

Not true. I have gone through both of Frédéric Chaberlo's books on the process of change in the Astronomic paradigm. He's a Swiss astronomer. AND a better historian of science than you.

One thing though. I refuse to term that process "progress" ...

"God is unfalsifiable by nature."

No, God would be falsified if nothing existed.

A personal God would be falsified in a purely material universe.

But in either case, we would not be around as conscious beings able to see that falsification.

"Geocentrism is not."

I think on some level St. Robert Bellarmine agreed with you. But not in a Popper way.

"We 100% know it is false by way of literally all evidence."

Like our seing the Sun move?

Jhon Voyage

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
You try to debunk things on a Youtube comment section that has been established pretty solid, instead of proving your claims, made them peer reviewed, and published.

Destroying the scientific method of reasonable people that served humanity pretty well so far.

So, don't waste your precious time here....

Chop-chop!

Also, while you are at it, check what Dunning-Kruger means! ;)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jhon Voyage "Destroying the scientific method of reasonable people that served humanity pretty well so far."

I got what Dunning Kruger means 20 years ago.

I know some who use that term are into psychology, also known as slave hunt. That's a thing I curse.

But when it comes to the scientific method serving mankind so well so far by pre-publication peer reviewed scientific journals, you are dreaming. Since that became standard, science has been involved in several crimes of slave hunt, while the really useful inventions came well before this procedure.

YOU are providing peer review by arguing.

And your preference for arguing over procedure is also an argument - in my favour, as per what it suggests about your ability to argue the actual issues.

3:29 It would seem pretty probable that JMIKE pretends to understand reality on the suppositions of:

• Big Bang
• Heliocentrism
• Abiogenesis
• Evolution of diverse species, genera, families, even orders, from originally one celled organisms
• Gradual humanisation of man from non-human evolutionary ancestors.

Jhon Voyage

And here we have Hans!
A great example kids, to make sure you read books from valid sources....

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jhon Voyage "books from valid sources"

are they proof?
or are they brand building?

So, if you ask me, the Catholic Church is a valid source, and the Bible are 73 valid books from this valid source.

Why didn't I go for this argument? On your principle it would be ideal, right?

W e l l ... I recognise that you don't recognise the 73 books of the Bible as coming from a valid source, nor the Catholic Church as being that.

I just offered to show its validity, if you had the courage to actually argue against it, which is different.

So, between us, I suggest that you come up with some other less partisan argument than "books from valid sources" - unless you are ready to meet the same challenge for your valid sources.

How about it?

@Jhon Voyage And what book from what valid source is supposed to explain any of the items on my list as possible?

Jhon Voyage

@Hans-Georg Lundahl And you have just represented that you have no idea what is valid, and what is not.

Have you heard the words like, peer reviewed, cross checked, demonstrated?

Dunning-Kruger! :D

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Did the Catholic church has ever Demonstarted in any way, that the Bible is true?

Ok, so when did the Vatican has ever proven that the Firmament is real exactly?

Dunning-Kruger! :D

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jhon Voyage Peer review is a superstition.

Post publication review isn't, that's called discussion. But making a pre-publication review in order to block certain things from even being discussed is Jewish Gatekeeping, it's like the Rabbis did with Isaiah 53. Not sure all the Jews are the worst offenders today, though.

Trusting gatekeeping of that type is superstitious.

As to cross-checking and demonstrating, which latter is either Latin for "showing / proving" or Johnsonese for "proving" - what about them?

"Did the Catholic church has ever Demonstarted in any way, that the Bible is true?"

The Catholic Church is the community of which the NT is the historic memory.

You are aware that history is proven by the communities it concerns, right?

"So when did the Vatican has ever proven that the Firmament is real exactly?"

In the 1500's by banning the idea it is in the normal sense of the word a solid body.

Aether works better, in Geocentrism, if it is the thing in which placed bodies are placed - since it means, if God made a globe of aether reaching from Earth to Fix Stars, He only needs to turn it around Earth, and heavenly bodies move in it for the daily motion.

I can't say, as previously said, this is less in need of a burden of proof than the existence of a God able (by omnipotence and all wisdom) to make some or all of these steps superfluous.

9:41 Anomalies (against a naturalistic world view) from a purely empirical and rational pov, which does not coincide with "Modern Science" but uses its empirical raw data:

• day and night and seasons - the universe is so big, arranging the heavenly bodies to circle us is not sth my muscle power could do on a crank
• day and night and seasons - the movements are so intricate, arranging them is not sth (perhaps unlike Heliocentrism) that at least unguided gravity and inertia could achieve
  
  
• mind and body - our bodies seem made up of a matter that's apparently same kind of atoms that lifeless objects are made of: no way to arrange a mind by them (no, computers don't have minds)
• mind and body - our bodies seem to have a mind as long as we are alive, while vital processes are on lots of levels analysed in ways that could work from purely materialistic conditions, this fact suggests that life is not materialistic
• mind and body - also, no actual life has ever been created from purely material and non-living things
• mind and body - between Australopithecus and Homo Erectus, there is a gap, Australopithecus clearly lacked and Homo Erectus on all checkable items had apparatus necessary for speech, no hominin has ever been found that was clearly halfway between them
• mind and body - human speech has three levels, phoneme, morpheme, phrase (a word can have either level morpheme within a phrase or level phrase involving many morphemes, in the latter case it is specific as to other phrases by having them in a set order : "I love" = two words, one per morpheme, order can be reversed, "amo" = one word, involving the same whole phrase, and "-o" cannot precede "am-") - this arrangement, as well as the capacity to change meanings from present to past, future, negated, conditional, by adding morphemes, as well as the capacity to be aware of the subject as an individual lack in ape communications
  
  
• history - miracles seem to occur
• history - only the Christian history seems to have well documented miracles of the "highest order" (attributable to an omnipotent being, not merely a superhuman spirit)
• history - Catholicism shows an unexpected stability over 2000 years as compared with simply human communities. Plus an unusual concentration of miracles.

Jhon Voyage

Ok, we heard your claims what doesn't work, now prove how those are work then!
GO!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jhon Voyage You are confused about proving and explaining.

Showing how sth works is explaining.

Showing a thing that only works a certain way and no other, is proving that certain way.

So, naturalistic evolution with big bang materialism won't explain this - any of it.

God omnipotent creating us, and partaking in the story of His creation, will. It will explain all of it.

10:30 With mechanistic hypotheses, you can get success either everytime, or everytime there isn't an obvious obstacle.

With personal hypotheses, this is not so.

So, predictions that work is somewhat overrated.

Except for omniscience. If a book collection contains prophecy after prophecy that is fulfilled and no credibly attested fact claim that's contrary to credibly attested or proven facts, we can predict that the next anomaly for that book collection will not work to debunk it as ignorantly human either. As you may have guessed, I refer to 73 books called a Catholic Bible.

Chum is Fum

😂

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Chum is Fum Enjoy the laughter, would you mind telling me what's hilarious?

Jhon Voyage

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Big Words Hans at it again....

Chum is Fum

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Your claim is humorously insane. 🤣

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jhon Voyage No big words.

Just acknowledging God's big deeds.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Chum is Fum Again, you are being highly imprecise about what is supposed to be wrong about my claim.

Jhon Voyage

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Words but no evidence.
Next!

Chum is Fum

I think the entire Book of Genesis destroys your Bible’s credibility.

And that’s LITERALLY for starters.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jhon Voyage I think Chum is going to be providing an opportunity to make them good.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Chum is Fum Yes, I said that the Bible contains "no credibly attested fact claim that's contrary to credibly attested or proven facts," - this means, taking Genesis literally is certainly implying credibly a lot of fact claims, but none of them is opposed to any credibly proven facts.

I know you disagree on that point, don't be shy.

How about proving the universe is 13 billion years old or man evolved from apes, with no primeval couple?

If you can. And, no, "peer reviewed publications" and "scientific method" are not proof to me. They may be sources of proof, to either of us, but that a claim has that label is not proof to me it is factually true.

15:38 Why would investigating scientists be better at deciding that than people like, apparently, the caller, and then people like William Schnoebelen and some more?

It is a historical claim that it has happened, and it is a historic view point whether the testimonies are credible.

I don't think that of John Todd is, it involves presumable false witness about JRRT and CSL, and its claims about discs being "blessed by druids" involve no proof of supernatural effect. But that doesn't invalidate the whole genre.

Chum is Fum

It’s a literary claim. That is all.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Chum is Fum I wonder whether you can distinguish between "historical" and "literary" claims coherently?

Jhon Voyage

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Hans, just because you are a well read person, doesn't makes you reasonable.
Get a grip buddy.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jhon Voyage I think I detect an ad hominem.

If I also detect some kind of conspiracy to "make up for" my pretended lack of good sense, I object of course.

So, apart from being or not being well read yourself, and thinking I am well read, what is your qualification to be "reasonable"? Opportunities to band together against my liberties given and taken?

God curse you if that is the case!