# "Desecration" of the Eucharist **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 18, 2011, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144 "2011-03-18T13:09:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 18
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/341 "2011-03-22T02:18:18Z")
> [@Sarahfeena](#): > > You’re actually completely conceptually wrong about this. Maybe. Some of that stuff was always just too sublime for me. I never got the Trinity either. ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/342 "2011-03-22T02:20:42Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Maybe. Some of that stuff was always just too sublime for me. I never got the Trinity either. Ha, the Trinity’s different. _No one_ gets the Trinity. ---
**Author:** ![TravisFromOR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/cc9497/32.png) [@TravisFromOR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TravisFromOR)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/343 "2011-03-22T02:39:04Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Maybe. Some of that stuff was always just too sublime for me. I never got the Trinity either. So then why are you arguing a position that you don’t understand? ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/344 "2011-03-22T02:39:29Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Wrong. It’s called the [Null Hypotheis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis). Existence of sky gods is a hypothesis, non-existence is the null. Non-existence is the default presumption because it’s not a claim. the one making the claim has the burden. Since this seems to be the center of your argument, I will deal with this first. To be honest I don’t think you have any idea what the “Null hypothesis” is actually about. The null hypothesis is part of a methodology of scientific testing and is not a general principle of logic. The null hypothesis only has meaning in a context where one designs an experiment which either will demonstrate the alternative hypothesis to be true, or through conspicuous lack of evidence demonstrate that the null hypothesis is true. It does not mean that the negation of any hypothesis can be considered true until otherwise. So to take an example where you might use this methodology, testing the effacacy of drug. The null hypothesis is that the drug is ineffective for treating the disease. The alternative hypothesis is that the drug does cure disease. To determine which is the most likely hypothesis one needs to gather evidence to decide. You do not simply declare before any evidence is gathered that the null hypothesis is the correct one. To do that is clearly absurd. Why test anything if you can just proclaim a priori that the null hypothesis is the correct one. To legitimately use the null hypothesis in this context you have to nominate evidence that you would necessarily expect to see if the alternative hypothesis is correct, and then demonstrate that the necessary evidence is indeed absent. So back to the drug example the necessary evidence you might nominate is that people given the drug have better outcomes than those that take a placebo. If the drug is effective that must be necessarily true. Then to show that the null hypothesis is the correct one you then have to show that there is in fact no difference in outcome between people who take the drug and a placebo. What is obviously fallacious is proclaiming before any study is done that the drug is ineffective because there is no evidence that it works. For any statement one needs to present evidence, and even the null hypothesis, when used correctly is believed because of evidence. Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/345 "2011-03-22T02:57:43Z")
I’m glad you read the wiki page. Ok, “God exists” is a scientific hypothesis. That automatically makes “God does not exist” the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis never has to be proven. It is incumbent on you to show that your hypothesis is more likely than the null. It’s just that simple. The null side doesn’t have to demonstrate anything. It doesn’t work that way. You are the one who has to show evidence your hypothesis explains the universe better than the null. The null is not a claim in itself, it’s what you have to test your alternative against. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/346 "2011-03-22T03:12:16Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > How is destroying a Quran in response to something done by Catholics “giving the finger to the bigots”. > > What Myers did was the equivalent of, after hearing about someone being threatened for burning the American flag, publicly burning both the American flag and throwing the Russian flag in as well. Yes, that’s a pretty good analogy. And if someone were to do that, it would make a good point. > [@Calculon](#): > > It is also circular because the resurrection is only prima facie impossible if God does not exist. If God does in fact exist then there is no problem with miraculous things happening. You gotta be kiddin’ me. You know, this morning, I thought about taking my car to work, but I decided to pray myself there instead, and I was magically instantly teleported to my office. Since you believe that a God exists, you should have no trouble accepting my story. It is every bit as credible as the 2000-year-old resurrection story. ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 3:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/347 "2011-03-22T03:16:10Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The Problem of Evil renders possible necessity logically impossible Care to explain how? I don’t feel like just taking your word for it. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Dawkins does not have a burden to do that, but in point of fact, it is sufficient merely to point out that nothing observable in the universe makes God necessary. Anything beyond that is an appeal to absence. the default assumption is that necessity doesn’t exist until it’s demonstrated to exist. Since Dawkins relies on the non-necessity of God as one of the premises of his argument then he has to at least demonstrate why that is more probable than not. Otherwise I have no reason to think that his conclusion is true. I don’t think he does even that. Since he is trying to make the argument that the existence of God is unlikely he has a burden of proof to demonstrate his argument, just as anyone else would. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > He argues that nothing we’ve yet observed necessitates magic as an explanation. It’;s just that simple. Until he can demonstrate how everything came into being without God, or that everything has existed eternally then I would say that he has not in fact demonstrated that God is not somehow necessary. And vigorous assertion that is must be true (which is what he does) does not count as demonstrating that it is true. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Wrong. It’s called the [Null Hypotheis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis). Existence of sky gods is a hypothesis, non-existence is the null. Non-existence is the default presumption because it’s not a claim. the one making the claim has the burden. See previous post. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No, it doesn’t work that way. merely being able to inmagine that something exist does not give it a 50/50 chance of existing. The presumption is that X does not exist until proven otherwise. We do not need to waste our time disproving an infinite number of fanciful entities which lack either evidence or necessity. If you feel that God does not exist then come up with some sort of argument to demonstrate that he doesn’t. Otherwise I have no rational reason to believe that you are correct. Secondly your presumption is obviously fallacious. If a statement can only said to be true until proven otherwise, in what sense is it really true? Would the statement of a 18th century European naturalist that there are no mammals that lay eggs be true? There are such animals (the platypus, for instance) that exist in Australia and New Zealand. But because he at the time had no evidence that these creatures existed, is that statement still somehow true when it is obviously now objectively false. Would you say that true or false really just depends on what facts you are exposed to? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Lack of evidence is a rock solid argument for the null hypotheis. Wrong. Conspicuous lack of evidence is the argument for the null hypothesis. Just a general vague lack of evidence is not sufficient. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > If it God is defined as omnimax, then the first premise logically has to be true. Wrong. I think you need to better inform yourself on the POE. One can simply argue that: 1. Omnimax refers to only having abilities that are logically possible (ie: God cannot do contradictory things) 2. Being omnibenevolent, God would create the best of all possible worlds 3. Worlds that contain some measure of free will in them are necessarily better then worlds that do not. 4. The best of all possible worlds necessarily includes suffering, because it is logically impossible to create a world in which people have free will and which there is no suffering. You could probably state it better if you put more thought into it, but that is a general outline of the argument. Also note that if you deny the first premise, then you effectively are saying that God can be contradictory, so it is impossible to logically prove that he cannot exist. If God is omnimax in the sense of being able to do anything then creating a world that contains suffering is part of omnipotent abilities, and it doesn’t matter that this contradicts with his omnibenevolence because you have already asserted that God transcends logic. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > “Lack of evidence” has nothing to do with the POE. I was merely trying to demonstrate the form of argument Dawkins would need to use to effectively use “lack of evidence” > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Nor does it need to be. You have your burden backards here. If you want to allege necessity than demonstrate it. If it’s not demonstrated then the presumption is that it doesn’t exist. That’s the null hypothesis. Nope, you have it backwards. If Dawkins wants to assert that God is not necessary he needs to provide some argument for it. He is the one making the argument and needs to show that his premises are reasonable. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The justifications is the laws themselves, and you’re still making a sophist appeal to absence. If you want to allege that the laws of physics can be violated, then demonstrate it. The null hypothesis is that they cannot. Again, if you want to make this a premise of your argument you need to demonstrate that it is true. That is what making an argument is all about. You can’t just hide behind the null hypothesis. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You are the one with the burden of proof. > If you want to claim they can be violated, then you have to prove it. The null hypothesis is that they can’t be. I am not the one making the claim. You want to claim that the laws of physics are inviolable, then you have to demonstrate why you think that is the case. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > This is like some kind of bizarro blizzard of anti-logic that I an’t even follow. Think about it some more, maybe it will finally make sense to you. Basically what I am saying is that I suspect your belief in the inviolability in the laws if physics is based on your belief that God does not exist. To then turn around and use that as a reason why God cannot exist, when that is one of the premises of that belief, is entirely circular. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Dawkins is a biologist, not a philosopher, so I don’t know why it would be relevant what philosophers think of his work. If you’re asking what they think of _The God Delusion_ (which is written from a scientific perspecvtive, not a philosophical one), then I don’t know. He doesn’t make any real phiolsophical arguemnets in the book, although he does describe some classic ones. “The God delusion” is first and foremost a work of philosophy. The fact that Dawkins is trained as a biologist is neither here nor there. He is making philosophical arguments, so the book is a work of philosophy. This is especially true of his argument for the likely non-existence of God, which he states is the ceneterpiece of the book. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Nope. He’s just a biologist who wrote a popular book with some boiler plate criticisims of magical thinking. He said nothing particularly new in the book. I didn’t learn anything from it. Carl Sagan actually made a lot of the same points before Dawkins did. Dawkins himself seems to think that he is saying some new things. His ultimate 747 gambit for instance he gives the impression is his own argument. > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I don’t have that view. Dawkins is not a philosopher and says nothing philosophically new. What he says about the metaphysical claims of religion is _accurate_, though. If they are true then, why are they not being taken up by atheist philosophers? Why is no-one writing defenses of the ultimate 747 gambit? There are certainly people attacking it. I suspect it is because even the atheist philosphers see the holes in his arguments and don’t want to waste their time on it. Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![humanafterall](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/humanafterall/32/19654_2.png) [@humanafterall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/humanafterall)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/348 "2011-03-22T03:19:52Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > It is also circular because the resurrection is only prima facie impossible if God does not exist. If God does in fact exist then there is no problem with miraculous things happening. Yeah, about that. It’s like how when I was little, If I’d said the statement,“I’d make a deal with the Devil”, I half-expected some imp to sprout up out of a fiery hole with a contract written in Latin, and say " Well then, let’s make a deal, shall we?". Of course, here I am, 19 years old, and look! No Imps, and no contracts written in blood. Supposedly, God and Satan are everywhere. If this is so, then why hasn’t the Devil approached me with a deal? ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/349 "2011-03-22T03:21:30Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > I’m glad you read the wiki page. > > Ok, “God exists” is a scientific hypothesis. That automatically makes “God does not exist” the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis never has to be proven. It is incumbent on you to show that your hypothesis is more likely than the null. It’s just that simple. The null side doesn’t have to demonstrate anything. It doesn’t work that way. You are the one who has to show evidence your hypothesis explains the universe better than the null. The null is not a claim in itself, it’s what you have to test your alternative against. 1. The existence of God is not a scientific hypothesis. I know you think that EVERYTHING is a scientific hypothesis, but that is clearly an abuse of science. God, if he exists is simply not bound by physical laws and therefore the empirical method does not work on Him. 2. Even if you grant that it is a scientific hypothesis then the null hypothesis is only valid if you can design an experiment that enables you to distinguish between God existing and not existing. Until you design and perform that experiment the null hypothesis has no real meaning. You can only assign truth to the null hypothesis only AFTER necessary evidence for the alternative hypothesis has been shown to not exist. So what necessary evidence for the existence of God do you suggest demonstrates the null hypothesis. Until you can answer that question then you are simply abusing the principle. Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/350 "2011-03-22T03:22:48Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > To be honest I don’t think you have any idea what the “Null hypothesis” is actually about. The null hypothesis is part of a methodology of scientific testing and is not a general principle of logic. The null hypothesis only has meaning in a context where one designs an experiment which either will demonstrate the alternative hypothesis to be true, or through conspicuous lack of evidence demonstrate that the null hypothesis is true. I think he understands the concept very well, since a conspicuous lack of evidence is exactly what we have for this God Hypothesis. And by the way, things aren’t demonstrated as true; we either accept the null hypothesis or the alternative, tentatively and conditionally. > [@](#): > > To legitimately use the null hypothesis in this context you have to nominate evidence that you would necessarily expect to see if the alternative hypothesis is correct, and then demonstrate that the necessary evidence is indeed absent. The problem with this is that as soon as one of us atheists nominates evidence that we would expect for a God, the theist will _invariably_ tell us that this isn’t the God that he believes in. The situation we actually have is that theists propose vague, ill-defined, contradictory ideas of what this God is. So it’s up to you to provide a definition, and then provide evidence. Short of that, the default position is not to accept your claims. ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 3:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/351 "2011-03-22T03:27:04Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > You gotta be kiddin’ me. You know, this morning, I thought about taking my car to work, but I decided to pray myself there instead, and I was magically instantly teleported to my office. Since you believe that a God exists, you should have no trouble accepting my story. It is every bit as credible as the 2000-year-old resurrection story. That is only one alleged eye-witness account. If a whole movement was started that took as a primary belief that you were teleported to work, and that many people claimed to have seen you materialise, you might be approaching the evidence for the resurrection. As it is I think the best explaination for your story is that you made it up for dramatic effect. I think that the best explaination for the events surrounding the resurrection is that Jesus really was raised from the dead. Believing in the possiblity of miracles is not the same as believing in everything. You can still say that the evidence for a particular miracle is poor while for others it is quite good. Denying even the possibility of miracles is by far the more biased position because it means that no matter what evidence is presented you simply cannot believe that a miracle took place. Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/352 "2011-03-22T03:28:58Z")
> [@humanafterall](#): > > Yeah, about that. It’s like how when I was little, If I’d said the statement,“I’d make a deal with the Devil”, I half-expected some imp to sprout up out of a fiery hole with a contract written in Latin, and say " Well then, let’s make a deal, shall we?". Of course, here I am, 19 years old, and look! No Imps, and no contracts written in blood. Supposedly, God and Satan are everywhere. If this is so, then why hasn’t the Devil approached me with a deal? Maybe you weren’t asking him in the right way. Maybe the devil thought there was more to be gained in the long run in not appearing to you. Either way the lack of evidence is not conspicuous in it’s absense, so it doesn’t really prove much of anything. Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 3:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/353 "2011-03-22T03:32:01Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > 1. The existence of God is not a scientific hypothesis. I know you think that EVERYTHING is a scientific hypothesis, but that is clearly an abuse of science. God, if he exists is simply not bound by physical laws and therefore the empirical method does not work on Him. If God interacts with our physical world, then it’s a scientific hypothesis. If he does not interact with our physical world, then you have absolutely no way of knowing anything about Him. Either way, the resounding lack of evidence is plenty reason that we should reject the notion. ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/354 "2011-03-22T04:07:04Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > I think he understands the concept very well, since a conspicuous lack of evidence is exactly what we have for this God Hypothesis. And by the way, things aren’t demonstrated as true; we either accept the null hypothesis or the alternative, tentatively and conditionally. So what exactly is this conspicuous lack of evidence. > [@CurtC](#): > > The problem with this is that as soon as one of us atheists nominates evidence that we would expect for a God, the theist will _invariably_ tell us that this isn’t the God that he believes in. The situation we actually have is that theists propose vague, ill-defined, contradictory ideas of what this God is. So it’s up to you to provide a definition, and then provide evidence. Short of that, the default position is not to accept your claims. The problem is not lack of clear definitions of who theologians think God is. The problem is the intellectual laziness of most atheist writers to really make a genuine effort to understand who God is. Even if you can demonstrate that only one type of God is impossible, that is still an advance in the atheist position. I think though the problem is not shifting definitions of God, but that atheists have trouble coming up with evidence that is truly necessary. The orthodox (as in little “o” orthodox) Christian view of God has not changed all that much in the last 2000 years. Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/355 "2011-03-22T04:11:40Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > If God interacts with our physical world, then it’s a scientific hypothesis. If he does not interact with our physical world, then you have absolutely no way of knowing anything about Him. > > Either way, the resounding lack of evidence is plenty reason that we should reject the notion. God can interact with the physical world, and can be known through that interaction. The main point though is that the scientific method requires that such interactions should follow well defined laws to be discoverable. There is no requirement for God to interact with the world in such an ordered way, so science cannot be used to understand those interactions. Requiring that Gods interactions with the world must be repeatable and falsifiable to be real is just silly. Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/356 "2011-03-22T04:12:56Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > Care to explain how? I don’t feel like just taking your word for it. You’ve never encountered the probem of evil before? Ok, short version - the existence of evil is logically incompatible with an omnimax God. If God is all powerful, all knowing and all good then evil cannot exist because God cannot allow evil to exist and still be good unless he either lacks the ability to stop it (in which case he is not all powerful) or lack the knowledge that it exists (which means he’s not all knowing). If he merely lacks the will then he’s not all good. It is also logically impossible for evil to be a necessity because anything an amnimax entutry can accomplish by allowing evil to exist he can also accomplish with allowing evil to exist. An omnimax god does not require a means to an end. he merely wills the end. > [@](#): > > Since Dawkins relies on the non-necessity of God as one of the premises of his argument then he has to at least demonstrate why that is more probable than not. No he doesn’t. That’s the null hypothesis. No demonstrated. No demonstrayed necessity makes non-necessity the default assumption. The burden is on the person who wants to assert necessity. That is how all scientific method works. You don’t posit hypothesis without some demonstrated necessity. That’s just unproductive nonsense > [@](#): > > Until he can demonstrate how everything came into being without God, or that everything has existed eternally then I would say that he has not in fact demonstrated that God is not somehow necessary. And vigorous assertion that is must be true (which is what he does) does not count as demonstrating that it is true. Can you prove it happened without Zeus or Thor? This is ridiculous, and once again tries to reverse the burden of proof and demand that the other person prove the null. No, sorry, it doesn’t work that way. Prove the universe necessitates a “god.” > [@](#): > > If you feel that God does not exist then come up with some sort of argument to demonstrate that he doesn’t. No, it doesn’t work that way. I assume that gods don’t exist, but I make no positive assertion that they don’t. You say gods exist. I say I don’t see any. It’s not up to me to prove that I don’t see any. > [@](#): > > If a statement can only said to be true until proven otherwise, in what sense is it really true? In no sense. We aren’t talking about truths, we are talking about the necessity of making assumptions agaainst which we test hypotheses. The null holds until it is overcvome by an alternative. The null is not a declaration of ultimate, final truth. > [@](#): > > Wrong. Conspicuous lack of evidence is the argument for the null hypothesis. Just a general vague lack of evidence is not sufficient. The null hypothesis requires no argument at all, and any evdience at all can overcome it, but no evdidence at all has ever been produced to show that gods exist (and cbeliefs are not evidence). > [@](#): > > Wrong. I think you need to better inform yourself on the POE. I think it’s you who needs to do that > [@](#): > > One can simply argue that: > > 1. Omnimax refers to only having abilities that are logically possible (ie: God cannot do contradictory things) You mean omnipotent, not omnimax, and stopping evil from existing is not a logically impossible thing. > [@](#): > > 1. Being omnibenevolent, God would create the best of all possible worlds It means that God is not capable of doing evil or allowing it to exist unnecessarily. > [@](#): > > 1. Worlds that contain some measure of free will in them are necessarily better then worlds that do not. There’s Plantingas free will bullshit. First, cite that free will is better? Secondly free will itself is a logically nonsensical concept. > [@](#): > > 1. The best of all possible worlds necessarily includes suffering, because it is logically impossible to create a world in which people have free will and which there is no suffering. ha. This is where Plantinga goes right down the shitter.Leaving aside the fact that it ignores God’s own evil shit like giving toddlers SMA and causing tsunamis, the premise is completely false. Free will can exist without evil (and I’ll ignore the logical problems with the concept of free will in itself) because God is perfectly capable of creating on;y individuals who he knows will freely choose good. If he is omnsicient, he knows what people will choose before he creates them. He doesn’t have to create any Hitlers. Of course, the premise that a world will free will is better than a world without free will is still totally unsupported in the first place. > [@](#): > > You could probably state it better if you put more thought into it, but that is a general outline of the argument. This is hilarious. > [@](#): > > Also note that if you deny the first premise, then you effectively are saying that God can be contradictory I don’t deny the premnise that an omnipotent God can’t do things taht are illogical. I’m happy to stipulate to it. It makes absolutely no difference to the POE. > [@](#): > > I was merely trying to demonstrate the form of argument Dawkins would need to use to effectively use “lack of evidence” Dawkins doesn’t need any form of argument at all. You do. > [@](#): > > Nope, you have it backwards. If Dawkins wants to assert that God is not necessary he needs to provide some argument for it. Flatly incorrect. You are the one making the claim. Showing necessity is something that you have to overcome. Non-necessity is the null. The null never has to be defended. > [@](#): > > Again, if you want to make this a premise of your argument you need to demonstrate that it is true. That is what making an argument is all about. You can’t just hide behind the null hypothesis. You really aren’t understanding how scientific proof works at all. You have the burnded of proof. thje null, doesn’t have to be proven. You don’t prive elves exist by demanding that scientists prove they don’t. Yoiu can either support your hypothesis or you can’t. Obviously you can’t. > [@](#): > > I am not the one making the claim. yes you are. > [@](#): > > You want to claim that the laws of physics are inviolable, then you have to demonstrate why you think that is the case. That is the definition of physical laws. > [@](#): > > Think about it some more, maybe it will finally make sense to you. Basically what I am saying is that I suspect your belief in the inviolability in the laws if physics is based on your belief that God does not exist. I don’t have a belief in the inviolability of physical laws. I have a knowledge of it. The reason I don’t believe they’ve ever been violated is that thefe isn’t a shred of evidence that they’ve ever been violated. > [@](#): > > “The God delusion” is first and foremost a work of philosophy No it isn’t. At all. Not remotely. It’s half science and half political opinion about organized religion. It’s not a philosophy book. > [@](#): > > Dawkins himself seems to think that he is saying some new things. His ultimate 747 gambit for instance he gives the impression is his own argument. It is his own argument, but it’s a scientific one, not a philosophical one, and it’s specifically a refutation of Hoyle, and it’s really just a reiteration of Hume ("who designed the designer?) with an original analogy (the “crane” vs. the “skyhook”). > [@](#): > > If they are true then, why are they not being taken up by atheist philosophers? Why should they be? There’s nothing special in Dawkins book. > [@](#): > > Why is no-one writing defenses of the ultimate 747 gambit? Why should they ? There’s nothing original about it other than the analogy. > [@](#): > > There are certainly people attacking it. Like who? Plantinga trying to argue that God isn’t really complex? Give me a break. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/357 "2011-03-22T04:29:58Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > 1. Worlds that contain some measure of free will in them are necessarily better then worlds that do not. > 2. The best of all possible worlds necessarily includes suffering, because it is logically impossible to create a world in which people have free will and which there is no suffering. Assuming you believe in the Christian heaven, is there free will in heaven? ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/358 "2011-03-22T04:39:47Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > You’ve never encountered the probem of evil before? > > Ok, short version - the existence of evil is logically incompatible with an omnimax God. If God is all powerful, all knowing and all good then evil cannot exist because God cannot allow evil to exist and still be good unless he either lacks the ability to stop it (in which case he is not all powerful) or lack the knowledge that it exists (which means he’s not all knowing). If he merely lacks the will then he’s not all good. It is also logically impossible for evil to be a necessity because anything an amnimax entutry can accomplish by allowing evil to exist he can also accomplish with allowing evil to exist. An omnimax god does not require a means to an end. he merely wills the end. > > No he doesn’t. That’s the null hypothesis. No demonstrated. No demonstrayed necessity makes non-necessity the default assumption. The burden is on the person who wants to assert necessity. That is how all scientific method works. You don’t posit hypothesis without some demonstrated necessity. That’s just unproductive nonsense > Can you prove it happened without Zeus or Thor? > > This is ridiculous, and once again tries to reverse the burden of proof and demand that the other person prove the null. No, sorry, it doesn’t work that way. Prove the universe necessitates a “god.” > No, it doesn’t work that way. I assume that gods don’t exist, but I make no positive assertion that they don’t. You say gods exist. I say I don’t see any. It’s not up to me to prove that I don’t see any. > > In no sense. We aren’t talking about truths, we are talking about the necessity of making assumptions agaainst which we test hypotheses. The null holds until it is overcvome by an alternative. The null is not a declaration of ultimate, final truth. > > The null hypothesis requires no argument at all, and any evdience at all can overcome it, but no evdidence at all has ever been produced to show that gods exist (and cbeliefs are not evidence). > > I think it’s you who needs to do that > > You mean omnipotent, not omnimax, and stopping evil from existing is not a logically impossible thing. > > It means that God is not capable of doing evil or allowing it to exist unnecessarily. > > There’s Plantingas free will bullshit. First, cite that free will is better? Secondly free will itself is a logically nonsensical concept. > > ha. This is where Plantinga goes right down the shitter.Leaving aside the fact that it ignores God’s own evil shit like giving toddlers SMA and causing tsunamis, the premise is completely false. Free will can exist without evil (and I’ll ignore the logical problems with the concept of free will in itself) because God is perfectly capable of creating on;y individuals who he knows will freely choose good. If he is omnsicient, he knows what people will choose before he creates them. He doesn’t have to create any Hitlers. > > Of course, the premise that a world will free will is better than a world without free will is still totally unsupported in the first place. > > This is hilarious. > > I don’t deny the premnise that an omnipotent God can’t do things taht are illogical. I’m happy to stipulate to it. It makes absolutely no difference to the POE. > > Dawkins doesn’t need any form of argument at all. You do. > > Flatly incorrect. You are the one making the claim. Showing necessity is something that you have to overcome. Non-necessity is the null. The null never has to be defended. > > You really aren’t understanding how scientific proof works at all. You have the burnded of proof. thje null, doesn’t have to be proven. You don’t prive elves exist by demanding that scientists prove they don’t. Yoiu can either support your hypothesis or you can’t. Obviously you can’t. > > yes you are. > > That is the definition of physical laws. > > I don’t have a belief in the inviolability of physical laws. I have a knowledge of it. The reason I don’t believe they’ve ever been violated is that thefe isn’t a shred of evidence that they’ve ever been violated. > > No it isn’t. At all. Not remotely. It’s half science and half political opinion about organized religion. It’s not a philosophy book. > > It is his own argument, but it’s a scientific one, not a philosophical one, and it’s specifically a refutation of Hoyle, and it’s really just a reiteration of Hume ("who designed the designer?) with an original analogy (the “crane” vs. the “skyhook”). > > Why should they be? There’s nothing special in Dawkins book. > Why should they ? There’s nothing original about it other than the analogy. > > Like who? Plantinga trying to argue that God isn’t really complex? Give me a break. Given how enamoured you are with the completely fallacious “null hypothesis” and how, even is this thread you have shown a stunning unwillingness to back down from any of your assertions, no matter how wrong you are, I simply think there is no point in explaining myself further. I have better things to do than to argue with people who hold themselves up as ultimate authorities on everything while at the same advancing obviously fallacious arguments and completely dismissing well respected people who hold opposing views. I see there is simply no reasoning with you. I have better things to do with my time than talk to people who won’t listen. Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![Calculon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5a626/32.png) [@Calculon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Calculon)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/359 "2011-03-22T04:46:44Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > Assuming you believe in the Christian heaven, is there free will in heaven? Possibly, but people who have been saved and gone to heaven don’t have the same nature as those just created. It may be that it is somehow logically impossible for God to simply create people in their resurrected state. If that is so then your question doesn’t go where I think you want it to. Calculon. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2011, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144/360 "2011-03-22T04:47:24Z")
> [@Calculon](#): > > That is only one alleged eye-witness account. If a whole movement was started that took as a primary belief that you were teleported to work, and that many people claimed to have seen you materialise, you might be approaching the evidence for the resurrection. There is no such evidence for the Resurrection. There isn’t a single primary claim or eyewitness account for it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144.md?page=17) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/desecration-of-the-eucharist/575144.md?page=19)