No evidence for or against God? Rational to assume he's not there

[Meleagar]

You can't if the claim is SUPERNATURAL.

Why not?

Suppose I an alien is at my door. That is a small space right? Well what if we check and it isn't there? Well you could say "the alien is applying mind-control" or some other gymnastic move that is characteristic of UNFALSIFIABLE, SUPERNATURAL entities.

Who said such existences were "unfalsifiable"?

That's why I said a sufficeintly defined thing, and a sufficiently defined space. Given your example, one could simply use a camera to prove that there was no alien at the door using "mind control" to prevent others from seeing it. Mind control doesn't work on cameras.

God is such an entity.

Perhaps you mean the god that you imagine as the counterpart to your argument. I doubt you mean to say "every god that has ever been claimed to exist", considering that some cultures have claimed that cows or trees are gods.

Thus, if you claim that there is evidence for god, then you MUST claim evidence for xmen (xavier is manipulating us all)

No, you dont' have to make any such additional claims. One can easily find evidence that certain gods do not exist - for instance, the "all good, omnipotent, omniscient god" has evidence against it in the form of the argument from evil. Just because something is claimed to be supernatural doesn't mean one cannot find sufficient evidence to become convinced that such a thing doesn't exist; after all, don't christians turn into agnostics or atheists every day, leaving their faith, because it has been sufficiently proven to them that that particular god doesn't exist?

If there is no way to disprove a particular god, how does anyone ever lose their faith and become non-believers?

You see the problem with your logic?

No, but I do see the problem with yours.

[Think Harder]

"Why not?"

Because if an explanation is supernatural you can always play gymnastics with evidence.


"That's why I said a sufficeintly defined thing, and a sufficiently defined space. Given your example, one could simply use a camera to prove that there was no alien at the door using "mind control" to prevent others from seeing it. Mind control doesn't work on cameras."

Not true, because then I could say that this alien also has sufficient cloaking to hide him. You see where arguments go when people believe in such things?

Have you ever debated a Christian? You think that problem of evil even budges the believer? They find a way out of it, just like the alien example. So you have not even understood my logic, you wouldn't reply with the camera example if you had, so do not tell me you see problems in something you have not understood.

[Think Harder]

"If there is no way to disprove a particular god..."

Again, such a thing can never be done. We can't disprove unicorns exist. We can be reasonably certain to a degree, but "disprove" = 100% certainty, that's why I don't like using the term prove/disprove.

[RickSp]

"If there is no way to disprove a particular god..."

Again, such a thing can never be done. We can't disprove unicorns exist. We can be reasonably certain to a degree, but "disprove" = 100% certainty, that's why I don't like using the term prove/disprove.

The theistic claim that one cannot disprove the existence of an undefined concept is little more than an intellectual con game.

Regarding unicorns, unlike god or gods, there is indeed physical evidence that unicorns exist. Unicorn horns were highly prized in the Middle Ages. Unicorns are mentioned in the King James version of the Bible. On further examination, the unicorn horns turned out to be tusks of certain types of African antelope or of narwhals, but nevertheless physical evidence did exist. When that evidence proved not be what is was claimed, the case for unicorns fell apart.

I do have far more respect for the supporters of unicorns, who did provide evidence of their claims, albeit misidentified evidence, than I do for the theists who offer no evidence whatsoever.

[Meleagar]

"Why not?"

Because if an explanation is supernatural you can always play gymnastics with evidence.

One can play gymnastics with any evidence for any reason, so this explanation fails. Do you have another?

Not true, because then I could say that this alien also has sufficient cloaking to hide him. You see where arguments go when people believe in such things?

If you presented such an ad hoc explanation, you would be committing a logical fallacy. My evidence was enough to falsify the thing you claimed to have sufficiently described; a mechanical cloaking device is not "mind control".

Have you ever debated a Christian? You think that problem of evil even budges the believer? They find a way out of it, just like the alien example.

Well, if they give an ad hoc explanation, they would be as guilty of bad logic as you were in the above example. Most arguments do not have well-defined conclusions; what one is left with is which side is more personally convincing. Also, most of the rebuttals to the problem of evil argument center around free will, which is not an ad hoc explanation; it's part of the originally defined situation.

So you have not even understood my logic, you wouldn't reply with the camera example if you had, so do not tell me you see problems in something you have not understood.

You attempted to use an ad hoc explanation around my solution to the premise as stated. I fail to see the error in my logic. If one has a sufficiently defined premise, and a sufficiently defined search space, one can certainly come to a rational conclusion that that particular premise is likely false.

Many former Christians have encountered the problem of evil in one form or another, and many of them have become non-christians because of that very argument, so your hypothesis is demonstrably false. The problem of evil is often a sufficient argument to prove to some christians that their god doesn't exist.

[Meleagar]

The theistic claim that one cannot disprove the existence of an undefined concept is little more than an intellectual con game.

Except no one is asking that a god be disproven; what is being asked for is evidence that supports the positive assertion that no gods exist.

I do have far more respect for the supporters of unicorns, who did provide evidence of their claims, albeit misidentified evidence, than I do for the theists who offer no evidence whatsoever.

Except that most theists have abundant evidence for their claims.

[Meleagar]

"If there is no way to disprove a particular god..."

Again, such a thing can never be done. We can't disprove unicorns exist. We can be reasonably certain to a degree, but "disprove" = 100% certainty, that's why I don't like using the term prove/disprove.

Please support your assertion that "disprove" means "100% certainty".

[RickSp]

Except no one is asking that a god be disproven; what is being asked for is evidence that supports the positive assertion that no gods exist.

More silly word games. Why bother? You make a distinction without a difference.

Except that most theists have abundant evidence for their claims.

You are funny. In previous posts you have claimed that evidence can even include hallucinations or that convincing the gullible constitutes "evidence". Your farcical use of language does not constitute an argument.

Most theists, certainly the honest ones,as most are, would concede that their views are based on faith and not evidence.

[Meleagar]

More silly word games. Why bother? You make a distinction without a difference.

It is incumbent upon anyone that makes a positive assertion to support that assertion with evidence and logical inference. If one is making the positive assertion that no gods exist, it is incumbent upon them to support their assertion. Claiming that the challenger is playing "silly word games", or "is funny" is not supporting the assertion at hand; it is avoiding it.

You are funny. In previous posts you have claimed that evidence can even include hallucinations or that convincing the gullible constitutes "evidence".

Please support this assertion with quotes and reference to the post number and thread where I have made such claims.

Your farcical use of language does not constitute an argument.

Dismissing the challenger is not meeting the challenge. Ad hominem is not an argument or a rebuttal.

Most theists, certainly the honest ones,as most are, would concede that their views are based on faith and not evidence.

Appeal to popularity. You have been challenged to support various assertions; are you going to do so?

[Morality Games]

It is incumbent upon anyone that makes a positive assertion to support that assertion with evidence and logical inference. If one is making the positive assertion that no gods exist, it is incumbent upon them to support their assertion. Claiming that the challenger is playing "silly word games", or "is funny" is not supporting the assertion at hand; it is avoiding it.

While it is not absolutely possible to prove god does not exist, it is equally impossible to prove gravity exists. The legitimacy behind the claim "Gods do not exist" is derived from the fact that in all events where someone has forwarded a concept of divinity, the logic and scientific validity of the concept can be critiqued to an extent that the concept is no longer sound, unless it reduced to 'God might exist'.

It is worth noting, rationality is not a condition, it is a degree. There is a kernel of rationality lurking in the beliefs of even the most severe schizophrenic patients, which is what enables them to relate their thoughts (aka, communicate) to anything at all in the real world, In contrast, 'humanity' is a condition, 'earth' is a condition. Any evaluation of the rationality of atheism or theism must incorporate this understanding to be sensible -- the rationality of a statement is a degree, we refer to it as 'rational' if after an investigation it appears to be going more in that direction than in the way of irrationality.

Please support this assertion with quotes and reference to the post number and thread where I have made such claims.

Uh? In a moment, if it is necessary, but I find it surprising you are ignoring your history of claiming that phenomena observed by believers which are generally categorized as hallucinations by objective observers constitute evidence for belief. Later, you provided a mechanism (sort of . . .) in the form of a Boltzmann brain God, an argument of ours which petered out because you kept "refining" the conditions of your concept until you landed in too obviously awkward territory.

Anyway, about such observations constituting belief: it defies ordinary language, but if we want to extend the qualification of being evidence to pretty much any subjective experience, then necessity dictates we similarly change the meaning of science and debate to continue to exclude such evidence, because it does not fulfill the operational purposes of either practice. Things that are personally self-evident are of limited use in arguing out and rigorously analyzing and experimenting with the truth in spheres where it is on display for all.

[minorwork]

I didn't say I found it convincing. I said, evidence has convinced countless people for thousands of years, including some of the finest minds to ever live.

OK, now I'm with you. Looking back in history, some of the evidence was pretty feeble by today's standards. The Plague in Europe (1348) was considered evidence of the existence of a wrathful god and also by the scientists of the time to be evidence of a disturbance in the skies causing the sun to overheat the oceans near India, causing those waters to give off noxious vapors. I think that science has progressed, at least.

Why would you be bad? It's one thing to find the evidence for any god unconvincing; it's another to assert that no gods exist. Even those that assert that no gods exist aren't necessarily "bad"; they're just irrational.

It seems that irrational is a bad thing to be. You seem to be saying that an irrational person has made a willfully bad decision. That's why I might be considered "bad" and so rebel against the label. Perhaps another word. Delusional. Hmm. Not very complimentary either. No wonder Dawkins gets slammed.

You do not define god(s) enough to make a rational judgment as to Its or Their existence. There should be signs of this existence. Give 'em up. Just say that everything is God. Go broad and get it over. A broad enough definition will cover anything. That jar of Liquid Paper on my desk is part of God. That won't work. A personal God maybe. Bigger problems.

Not all proposed gods purportedly care about what happens to humans, such a report would be entirely irrelevant when asserting, say, a deistic god exists or doesn't exist.

I can see your point with the deist's god though you've not defined it. A Creator God created ALL and left the universes to run themselves. Yeah that's fine but not satisfying for some who demand a responsive active force that they can appeal to in everyday life.

Evidence goes by many names it seems. And as more is known of physics by application of the scientific method, the old evidences wither away, even the old "scientific" evidences. But at least science is supposed to be amenable to changing explanations, given enough evidence.

Holy books that are the final evidences for God just don't make the cut as durable evidence. If the holy books are to be considered a map of sorts to allow an individuals exploration of himself as a human in all its known and unknown aspects, then the books can be judged on their usefulness by the experimenter of things religious as a system in which his experiences can be understood by himself. The evidence of god(s) is in the experience of It. Thus, if there has been no experience of god(s) it is rational to act as if there is no god(s). Thus, for the man with no experience of god(s), professing the existence of god is an irrational belief, it is rational to go along with a crowd of such believers only to the extent that ones life depends on that crowd for survival. Ironic it would be if the whole crowd, then, had no experience of god and only because of peer pressure, so to speak, carried on as if there was god(s)!

[RickSp]

It is incumbent upon anyone that makes a positive assertion to support that assertion with evidence and logical inference. If one is making the positive assertion that no gods exist, it is incumbent upon them to support their assertion. Claiming that the challenger is playing "silly word games", or "is funny" is not supporting the assertion at hand; it is avoiding it.

You are playing silly word games, but so be it. The proper support for the claim that no gods exist is the fact that there is no evidence for the existence of those gods.

Now I expect for you to respond by repeating your silly assertion "that most theists have abundant evidence for their claims". You will then fail to produce that evidence and play silly games with the meanings of common words. Haven't we all been here before?