Detecting God

quote:

---

Unless there is a reasonable answer to this question, one can only assume that God is not part of the measurable world, and therefore not part of reality and therefore not real.

---

As others have pointed out, in the above statement you equate "reality" with (scientific) "testability" or "measurability." In so doing, you implicitly deny the existence of any non-physical reality.

quote:

---

As logic demands, it is up to those who claim that there is a non-physical reality to provide evidence of its existence. That which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence.

---

And isn't it equally up to those who deny that there is a non-physical reality to provide evidence of its non-existence? Otherwise they are likewise asserting a claim without evidence.BTW, logic also demands that one not insist on physical evidence for non-physical reality.

quote:

---

I do not claim that there is no non-physical reality.

---

So long as you leave the question "Does non-physical reality exist?" open, then you have no burden of proof, nothing for which you need to provide evidence. But make sure that you are really leaving the question open, rather than implicitly taking a position against the question as killinghurts did in the OP.

quote:

---

However, I need evidence before I will accept its existence. Have any?

---

Be careful that you are not asking for pyhsical evidence for non-physical reality. This would be illogical.

quote:

---

Imagine if we ran our court system like you run your logic. The prosecution would have to disprove the existence of leprechauns planting evidence at the scene of the crime just because the defense raises it as a possibility.

---

No, the prosecution would not have to disprove the claim, but they may decide to provide evidence against it. If so, the evidence would probably be implicit, based on the jurors' experience and their belief that leprechauns are imaginary. Leprechauns are not believable enough to provide "reasonable doubt." If this was the best the defense could do, they would lose.

quote:

---

Again, those making a positive claim must produce positive evidence. That would be you.

---

Where have I made a positive claim in this thread?

quote:

---

Have you heard of the saying: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"?
It isn't true that the weight of evidence lies equally with both sides when making a claim. It is up to the claimant to provide the evidence which is then refuted or not refuted based on the quality of the evidence provided by the other side of the debate. and so on...

---

Agreed. Looking at it another way, the "extraordinariness" or "unlikeliness" of the claim constitutes de facto evidence against it, which requires additional evidence to counter.From a historical and sociological perspective, of course, the "extraordinary" claim is atheism. Various forms of theism are the norm throughout history and throughout the world. So doesn't this put more burden of proof on the atheist?

quote:

---

If the non-physical 'reality' is able to affect the physical reality, then it isn't unreasonable to ask for physical evidence of said effect.

---

True. But what if the existence and operation of all physical reality depends moment-by-moment on a non-physical being? How could one detect this? There is no way to do a "control." It is a metaphysical question, not a scientific question.

quote:

---

That is the same thing.

---

No, it is not. Please re-read my sentence above and note where I changed your wording to my own.

quote:

---

So are you really saying that if the defense attorney claimed that leprechauns planted evidence at the scene of the crime that the prosecution would have to present evidence that this did not happen? Really?

---

Did I say this? No, of course not. I said that the prosecution would not have to disprove the claim, but they may decide to provide evidence against it. There are two important distinctions here. First is the difference between disproving and providing evidence against something. Criminal courts work with the metric of "reasonable doubt," not "proof." Second is the difference between being forced or compelled to do something, and having the freedom to decide whether or not to do it, depending on which approach the prosecuting attorney feels is best for his case.

quote:

---

So you are not trying to argue that a non-physical realm exists within which resides a supernatural being?

---

Have I argued this position in this thread? I don't think so. Rather, I have argued for open-mindedness on the question of whether a non-physical reality exists, and I have cautioned against making positive claims against the existence of non-physical reality.Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.