Gott Mit Uns: Open Letter to Atheists and Theists

[MMI]

Believers don't have to prove what they believe in, as long as they are happy with whatever evidence they feel is already available. It's only non-believers who demand the proof.

Non-believers demand proof when believers assert, as a fact, that "A" exists. They do not demand proof of assertions that have not been made because there is no controversy about that. To say the same thing differently, non-believers did not deny the existence of "A" (in fact, nobody did) until someone claimed that "A" did exist.

It's still only a presumption, however. Just because you can't prove it exists and can't demonstrate that it exists doesn't mean that it cannot exist. Just that you can't, under current conditions and with current technology, prove it's existence.

In astronomy, especially, there have been many objects which were presumed to exist despite the fact that they could not be detected or measured. They were deduced based on effects which occur that seemed to require something of their kind to exist. That didn't necessarily mean they did exist (I can think of one that was shown to be untrue), just that they might exist.

How can anyone disagree with that? But until the existence of those "objects" could be proved, the suggestion that they did exist was nothing more than a hypothesis, and it was perfectly legitimate for other people to doubt, deny and ignore them until the proof was presented to them. The "believers" had to prove their case, not the other way round.


True, one cannot "know" something exists without proof, and those who claim to know it are, indeed, liars. But believing something exists without proof does not make one gullible.

OK - if not gullible, deluded.

Until the time when a spacecraft actually orbited the moon and photographed the far side, scientist could only assume that there would be craters there. Believing that there were craters there did not make the scientists gullible, just trusting that their conclusions were accurate. And if that first spacecraft had shown that there cotton candy trees on the far side of the moon instead of craters, would you think the scientists were stupid to have believed in the existence of craters in the first place? I think not!

No, of course not. They formed their opinions on the basis of what they knew. Rational opinions that built up a viewpoint based on probability; but rebuttable by going tot he far side of the Moon and looking.

I accept that belief in "A" is wholly tenable if there is a body of experience and evidence suggesting that it exists, but no-one should claim that this is proof positive of "A's" existence. It's still just opinion or belief, whether likely or not.

I agree, you have a right to your point of view, and I don't criticize your comments just because I may not agree with them. I'm only trying to point out what I perceive to be logical fallacies in some of your comments. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm right.

But I believe I am!

Then I beg to differ

And for the record, I, too, am a non-believer. I long ago discarded the need for some supernatural magic worker in my life. I find there are far too many discrepancies even within single religions, much less between different religions, to make such a belief viable, for me.

That doesn't necessarily mean I'm right.

But I believe I am!

And so do I

As for people who have "experienced" the existence of "A", while that might convince them personally, it does not count as proof for others. That experience might be the real thing, but there are probably many other explanations that are just as good or better.

[Thorne]

Non-believers demand proof when believers assert, as a fact, that "A" exists. They do not demand proof of assertions that have not been made because there is no controversy about that. To say the same thing differently, non-believers did not deny the existence of "A" (in fact, nobody did) until someone claimed that "A" did exist.

That doesn't give non-believers the right to harass and attack believers of "A" whenever they feel like it. If believers want to build monuments to "A" with their own money, why not? If they want to celebrate the birthday of "A" with their own rituals, let them. As long as they aren't forcing non-believers to pay for those monuments or participate in those rituals what harm is done?

How can anyone disagree with that? But until the existence of those "objects" could be proved, the suggestion that they did exist was nothing more than a hypothesis, and it was perfectly legitimate for other people to doubt, deny and ignore them until the proof was presented to them. The "believers" had to prove their case, not the other way round.

I accept that belief in "A" is wholly tenable if there is a body of experience and evidence suggesting that it exists, but no-one should claim that this is proof positive of "A's" existence. It's still just opinion or belief, whether likely or not.

Most believers already feel that their case has been proven. 5000 years of human civiliation is their proof. A 2000 year old book (or maybe only 1500 years or so) is their proof. If we don't choose to accept their evidence, their proof, it becomes incumbant upon us to prove them wrong.

OK - if not gullible, deluded.

That's rather condescending. One can only be gullible or deluded by believing in something which flies in the face of proof, not by believing in something for which there is no proof one way or the other. Believing that the moon is made of green cheese or that the Earth is flat is deluded. Believing in God is faith. There's no proof one way or the other, and only one way (presently) to learn the truth.

As for people who have "experienced" the existence of "A", while that might convince them personally, it does not count as proof for others. That experience might be the real thing, but there are probably many other explanations that are just as good or better.

There may be thousands of explanations which you feel are better. Those same explanations may seem worse to someone else. It's all subjective, because there is no proof one way or the other. It's a matter of personal opinion, based on whatever existing evidence one believes in.

In which case, your opinions, and mine, are no better or worse than anyone else's. Without proof, one way or the other, they are only opinions, or beliefs.