FF Davao Meetup - Dec. 23, 2009

We never expected to have as much as 13 freethinkers in our first ever regional meet-up. You were all great guys! Pictures to follow…

Does God Exist? Video Campaign -- Refuted

Let me rewrite the second paragraph above:

More importantly, the Deity I believe in, if it exists, doesn’t intervene in human affairs (I don’t think it can enter space-time, or if it could, it would be subject to the natural laws and hence powerless ‘inside’ our universe, so it doesn’t really make any difference whether one believes in it or not.

Does God Exist? Video Campaign -- Refuted

@ Pecier: As far as the interfering Abrahamic God is concerned I am practically an atheist, a #6 in Dawkins’ spectrum – “I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there”. I am not saying that the Abrahamic God does not exist but simply that I’m very, very skeptical about it and that I highly doubt its existence. Now do I carry the burden of proof to prove its non-existence? I don’t think so, unless I made an affirmative statement that “God does not exist”, in which case I would have to provide reasons (not necessarily proof beyond all doubt) why I made such claim.

Now as for the general idea of a Creator – a necessary First Cause of the universe, I am a #2 in Dawkins’ spectrum – “I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there” – although the “live my life on the assumption” part doesn’t matter because the creator I believe in merely caused the Big Bang and let the universe unfold and evolve based on the natural laws embodied in it.

Now what proof do I have for the existence of a creator? None – otherwise I would have been a #1 in Dawkins’ spectrum – “I do not believe in God; I KNOW there is God”.

Does God Exist? Video Campaign -- Refuted

From deism.com:

It is important to understand what “Burden of Proof” means. Technically, it refers to legal matters, but it also applies in other fields of human endeavor like philosophy and science. Every affirmative statement carries a Burden of Proof, and although dogmatic atheists deny their own assertions are subject to this basic logical requirement of argumentation, no one is exempt. A Burden of Proof does not imply, outside of its legal context, proving something beyond a shadow of a doubt, but on the responsibility to provide reasons for one’s position. If one publicly makes a statement, then one has the burden of providing reasons for that statement. It is important to realize that an affirmative statement involves the wording of the statement and not just a positively worded statement.

Example 1) A skeptic states he is not convinced that a Big Bang ever took place.

Response: The skeptic is unconvinced and has no Burden of Proof to prove or disprove anything. The proponent of the Big Bang model can offer scientific evidence to show that there is an outward expansion of the universe and that radio telescopes are picking up a background radiation consistent with the idea of a Big Bang.

Note: The skeptic did not state no Big Bang took place, but merely that he is not convinced. Being skeptical is not the same as making affirmative statements that things are or are not. The essence of the skeptic is to question, not to state things are not so. Socrates is an excellent example of a skeptic.

Example 2) A flat-earth proponent states that the earth is not a sphere.

Response: The flat-earth proponent clearly made an affirmative statement that something is not the case. As such, the Burden of Proof lies on him to provide his reasons for rejecting the idea that the earth is a sphere.

Note: The flat-earth proponent did not merely state he was not convinced or did not believe, but that something was NOT the case. As such, he places himself under the burden to explain his reasons. Any attempt on his part to evade his responsibility to explain his reasons would rightly be taken as intellectual dishonesty.

Example 3) A creationist states that the Theory of Evolution is unscientific nonsense.

Response: The creationist has made an affirmative statement that something is unscientific nonsense. As such, the Burden of Proof lies on him to provide his reasons for rejecting the Theory of Evolution.

Note: The creationist did not merely state he was unconvinced or did not believe in evolutionary theory, but that it was unscientific nonsense. As such, he places himself under the burden to explain how it is: unscientific and nonsense.

Example 4) A Biblical literalist states that Carbon-14 Dating is fundamentally flawed.

Response: The Biblical literalist has made an affirmative statement that something is flawed. As such, the Burden of Proof lies on him to provide his reasons why he believes Carbon-14 Dating is flawed.

Note: The Biblical literalist did not initially state that he was unconvinced by the science of Carbon-14 Dating, but that Carbon-14 Dating was flawed.

Now as can be observed from the above examples, an affirmative statement can be worded as to appear negative. To state one does not believe in something is not the same as to state something does not exist or that something does exist. A statement to the effect that “God does not exist” is not the same as saying “I am not convinced God exists.” The former carries the Burden of Proof to offer one’s reasons for that opinion; the latter carries no such burden. If the Burden of Proof always rested on the proponent of those saying a thing exists, then such people would always have to defend themselves and their beliefs. Newton formulated the hypothesis that would become the Law of Gravity, and was the one carrying the Burden of Proof to explain it. If a critic of Newton stated he was not convinced such a law existed, then that critic is not under the Burden of Proof obligation. If on the other hand, that critic of Newton said Gravity does not exist, then he has taken the Burden of Proof onto himself to provide his reasons. It would be unfair and illogical to assert that only Newton had the Burden of Proof but the denier of gravity did not. Although one cannot prove something does not exist, one can refute or at least rebut a theory that something exists by logically demonstrating flaws in the theory. For example, if a denier of Gravity released a marble that did not fall to the floor that would be proof that Newton’s Law of Gravity was flawed.

If you look and examine really close, you might just find out something about the common, Judeo-Christian God and variations of it...

This reminds me of a story told by my English teacher. He said that when he was in high school they were made to write an essay about “Silence”. Out of sheer laziness, he wrote his name on the upper-left corner of the paper and “Silence” at the center a few lines down, then he submitted the paper. He got an A+.

Infidelity: Human Nature and the Corpus Callosum

@ Gaelan: Agreed. But what I was saying was, why do people who do not want kids still do the sexual act and risk pregnancy?

Rabbits Part Three: The Clearing

That was a very deep insight, Wes. I never thought of that! LOL

Infidelity: Human Nature and the Corpus Callosum

@ Frank: I guess you’re right about the male-dominated society part. The corpus callosum might explain why men cheat, but not why they are treated less harshly.

November Meetup 1: Secularism and the Elections

I see. But it wouldn’t be the same without you guys. Besides, I have no experience in organizing such things – I’m just a simple frustrated writer. I just hope some freethinking Davaoeños with leadership qualities would stumble into this site and do the organization themselves, and I will be there to support them.

Open Letter to the CBCP by Poch Suzara

@ GabbyD: I see. I got your point. It’s like Poch is saying that it is a ‘general characteristic’ of Christians to be driven to help others out of fear for their own eternal welfare – that those who call themselves ‘Christians’ are ’supposed to be’ like this, that this is the standard for Christianity.

If that is indeed what Poch meant, then I agree with you that he is wrong. But if he only meant that “some Christians” are like this, then I agree with him.