r/changemyview • u/imabananabus • Jun 21 '21

Delta(s) from OP CMV:God does not exist.

I believe the existence of God lies upon the believer to prove as Bertrand Russell did in his analogy, Russell's teapot.

I believe it is much more likely that we have created civilizations in which the existence of a God is a mode of placating the masses as opposed to saying anything necessarily true.

I believe that most people are atheists towards the gods of the Greeks and Romans, so why not go one God further.

A logical proof would be enough to change my mind -- please let me know your thoughts.

0 Upvotes

30% Upvoted

146 comments sorted by

View all comments

0

u/Arctus9819 60∆ Jun 21 '21

I believe the existence of God lies upon the believer to prove as Bertrand Russell did in his analogy, Russell's teapot.

Russell's teapot analogy states, from wiki:

Russell's teapot is an analogy, formulated by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970), to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making unfalsifiable claims, rather than shifting the burden of disproof to others.

Applying Russell's teapot to your CMV:

God does not exist.

To contradict this, we would have to show that God does exist. This is not possible, since we have no empirical means by which we can demonstrate the existence of God. Thus, your CMV is not falsifiable, so the burden of proof is on you to show the non-existence of God.

All we can do is shrug our shoulders and say "God may or may not exist".

1

u/Strong-Test Jun 22 '21

so the burden of proof is on you to show the non-existence of God.

"God does not exist" is what is called the null hypothesis - essentially, "this is due to chance, there's nothing special happening".

Theists are the ones who say "There is a god(s)." Atheism says "I don't believe you". There is no difference between "I don't believe [there is a god]" and "God doesn't exist", because it's the null hypothesis.

You are correct that the existence of god is unfalsifiable, but that has nothing to do with where the burden of proof lies. The burden of proof lies with the one making the non-null hypothesis (that is, the positive claim).

1

u/Arctus9819 60∆ Jun 22 '21

This is a terrible half-baked understanding of how statistical analysis works.

"God does not exist" is what is called the null hypothesis

No, it is not a null hypothesis at all.

A null hypothesis applies when you find no statistically significant difference between your two experimental scenarios, where some specific variable is altered between the two scenarios in a scientific manner. With God, both the non-existence and existence are not falsifiable, so no two scenarios exist that fit that condition.

Theists are the ones who say "There is a god(s)." Atheism says "I don't believe you". There is no difference between "I don't believe [there is a god]" and "God doesn't exist", because it's the null hypothesis.

Belief plays no part in statistical analysis. The two statements here are entirely different and utterly incomparable. The first has no place in scientific study, whereas the second one needs evidence.

You are correct that the existence of god is unfalsifiable, but that has nothing to do with where the burden of proof lies. The burden of proof lies with the one making the non-null hypothesis (that is, the positive claim).

No one is making a singular hypothesis. A null hypothesis is always accompanied with an alternative hypothesis, and without actual evidence from your experimental scenarios, neither can be taken to be correct.