Is there any burden of proof on atheists to disprove the existence of a god? [Spirituality & Religion]

@CopperCicada

I always disagree with that.
I think if you say it absence of proof isn't proof of absence then it makes sense.

Seems to me that an absence of evidence that something exists could be considered evidence of its absence.

@Pikachu No. It's a logical fallacy.

We had absence of evidence-- of cells, protozoan, bacteria, viruses for most of the history of science.

That wasn't evidence that they didn't exist.

We just didn't have evidence that they did exist.

We can repeat that for various aspects of physics.

We had absence of evidence of the strong and interaction, the color and flavor of quarks for most of the history of physics.

That wasn't evidence that they didn't exist.

We just didn't have evidence that they did exist.

@CopperCicada


Why not?

@Pikachu Things exist irregardless of whether we've discovered them or not.

From a scientific vantage point, discovering or understanding something doesn't make it suddenly pop into existence.

Back when they were rubbing amber with fur to charge it up--- those electrons were still fermions with spin 1/2 and a rest energy of 0.511 MeV.

@CopperCicada




Of course. So that's where'd i'd come back to absence of proof is not proof of absence, or absence of evidence is not proof of absence.
But why can't the complete lack of evidence for bigfoot be considered evidence that he does not exist?

@Pikachu Putting religion aside...

... non-observation is an interesting thing from a scientific standpoint. Not observing an event doesn't prove that a thing doesn't exist. Take the decay of the proton, which is presumed to be stable. In experiments protons have never been shown to decay. That's not proof that the decay of protons doesn't happen. It just sets a lower bound on the lifetime of the proton.

Similar thing with not observing a big foot. It's harder to quantitate than the decay of the proton which follows a certain type of statistics, but not observing big foots over time simply reduces the probability of them existing.

In the case of proton decay, what one would do is say, OK, the lifetime of the proton is larger than our estimate of the age of the universe-- so it's stable. Similar for the big foots. 1 in a trillion they exist-- so, yea, not so much.

That's what a lack of evidence gets you. Lower limits.

Fundamentally that's different than proofs that things don't exist. In physics there are a lot of those. There are no longitudinal electromagnetic waves in free space. I don't have to wait around looking for one. There are fundamental reasons they don't exist. There are no truly 2D magnetic systems. There are no systems that decrease entropy. There are no high symmetry crystals that are piezoelectric.

@CopperCicada



Yes, agreed.

But you keep saying "proof". I just want to be clear here.
When you use the word proof do you intend that to include evidence?

At what point does a lack of evidence for something become so conspicuous (eg> bigfoot) that it starts to look like evidence against that thing's existence?
How low do the limits get?

@Pikachu I guess my personal training differentiates *observationally looking for* a proton decay and ending up with a lower limit-- and having a more *fundamental proof* that they have an infinite lifetime-- as is the case with a photon because they are massless.

So with bigfoot... there's no particular deep fundamental reason unidentified ape things might not exist. So one is just left to observation.

How low do the limits get? Usually 5-sigma is considered certain-- but it's not a proof per se. 5-sigma is 99.999942%.

@Pikachu @CopperCicada It is the burden of the person making an unfalsifiable claim to provide evidence supporting their position

@CookieLuvsBunny Sure. I agree.

My personal view is that attempting to prove/disprove metaphysical claims through science is a category error.

The point of my posts in this thread was really to just point out there is a difference between "proof" and observational absence/presence.

@CopperCicada


Sorry, that didn't really clear it up for me.
In the bigfoot example when does a lack of evidence where there should be evidence (if it existed) become evidence that it doesn't exist?
Not proof, but evidence. Why shouldn't a continued lack of evidence for the assertion of existence be considered evidence that it doesn't exist?

I'm sure this feels to you like we're talking in circles so if you get tired of it just let me know.

@Pikachu I'm just pointing out different methodologies. A closed rigorous proof. Like an existence/non-existence theorem. And observational inference.

Drop big foot for a moment. Consider prime numbers.

I can prove a very deep thing about prime numbers in general. Like the number of prime numbers less < x goes as x/log(x) as x gets very large. Euler did this back in the 1700's. A deep thing. A general thing. A proof. But for a specific x I have to try to factor that fucker. I have to study it, examine it.

So consider physics. Photons have no mass, so they have infinite lifetime. I can prove that directly from conservation of mass-energy. That's a fundamental thing. I don't have to start looking at photons and make sure they go fall apart.

Protons now-- different story. If string theory or super symmetry has validity then they might decay. So I can sit and watch. Find a lower limit. Keep at it. Eventually that lower limit is bigger than the scale of the age of the universe. So I say, OK. Protons are stable. At 5-sigma I could say that.

But that's still not a proof. If I can shoot down supersymmetry and string theory and rule out any possible decay channels for the proton-- then I have something deeper than inference through non-observation. I have what I'd call proof.

So big foots. People don't see 'em. But then people don't see animals presumed to be extinct and one shows up. I've never seen 5-sigma stats on the non-existence of big foots. I've not seen 1-sigma stats. But I'll presume it's the case. Let's compare the number of people who have seen them compared to all the people who have lived since the first person claimed to see one.

But that's still not a rigorous proof. It's inference through non-observation.

Now if you said big foot was a mile tall, then we could prove that was impossible. It's surface area to volume ratio wouldn't support life. The strength of materials couldn't allow it to stand. Boom. No mile high big foots.

I'm not trying to bust chops. And I'm really not trying to make a metaphysical point. But in physics we go to great lengths to observe things like proton decay and magnetic monopoles--- but not things like photon or electron day... for reasons.

I think that distinction is useful.

@Pikachu Another example.

Your house is 100 km away, and the speed limit is 100 km/hour.

I show up in 40 minutes. I have no speeding tickets and say, look, I didn't speed. Observational absence. Some people might buy that. But there was fresh doughnuts and the police were distracted.

Or I show up with a ticket. Radar clocks me at over 120 km/hour. Busted. Observational presence.

Or I show up, and before showing you a ticket, or the lack thereof, you freak out because of my excessive speeding. You know from the mean value theorem that I must have, at some point, gone over 150 km/hour. Proof not based in observation.

They are all useful. But not the same at all.

@CopperCicada

Sorry man. I'm just not getting. I'm also confused because you keep saying proof where i keep saying evidence.
Anyway, you've been more than patient. Thanks.

@Pikachu Dear one-- your OP mentions "proof".

I suspect we have different notions of what "evidence" means/doesn't mean and what "proof" is.

@CopperCicada

Well it mentions the burden of proof which i consider to be the burden to substantiate your claim. Not necessarily by proving that you're right but by giving good evidence that you are.


I suspect you are correct. What does evidence mean to you?

@Pikachu Evidence is a positive phenomenon, not a negative one. Something that exists that supports a truth claim-- which itself can be positive or negative.

Evidence is as meaningful as the truth claims they intend to support. Some truth claims are floppy and sloppy, others more rigorous. Evidentiary precision isn't required to a truth statement that is affective like "she's beautiful" or one that is ill posed "matter is hard." It is for the statement "this Higgs boson exists and its mass is 125 GeV".

Evidence can't be a negative phenomenon. It can't be an absence. The best non-observation can provide is lower bounds on things that might exist. That is, lower bounds on evidence being found.

@CopperCicada

Well not sure i agree but thanks for the discussion.

@Pikachu Another approach.

Does as CSI (crime scene investigator) ever submit an empty baggie into evidence?

@CopperCicada
nope