Where are the arguments for god?
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
I will do a longer reply if I can in a few days. To properly respond to your post.
I am real glad you recognize and understand you have zero empirical evidence for your god idea.
We have been going around in circles for a while now, so I am going to try a slightly different angle:
I am an atheist because I am a skeptic. As a skeptic I dismiss as truth/fact any unevidenced ideas humans come up with. If there is controversy if an idea is evidenced or not, I try to investigate it to best of my ability. Me constantly asking any theist that visit these boards to evidence their god is part of that investigation.
I think the ability to distinguish reality from human make believe is very important. How do we seperate make believe from reality? Evidence, empirical, testable, repeatable evidence. Any and all god ideas I ever heard of, does not have even a little bit of evidence.
If you want to say the atheist position is also an unevidenced "belief" that's fine, for now, I will be happy to argue that separately. I am already quite happy that it seems you accept that their is zero empirical evidence for your god idea. To me this is huge progress.
Now I feel we need to get you to understand the importance of what it means when an idea is completely unevidenced. That an unevidenced "god" idea is the same as believing in thor, or the tooth fairy or loch ness monster, etc. Or even the same as the cute cuddly puppy god I just made up. All on the same equal basis of actual reality we should act on, (correct response is to dismiss those ideas as useless once investigated.)
What do you mean by empirical evidence?
Do you agree with the definition I quoted?
If something cannot be seen (empirical evidence).
Is it logical to ask for empirical evidence?
There is no empirical evidence for the belief that God does not exist.
Do you "dismiss that idea as useless"?
I did not say that God was "completely unevidenced".
There is a lot of evidence if you agree with this Google Dictionary definition
"The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid".
I will be glad to give you the "evidence" and arguments I have.
But first I need to know what evidence you have.
And what you mean by evidence and empirical evidence.
(edited for spelling)
The wikipedia first line on empirical evidence is thus:
"Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation."
I am fine with that.
If it can be one of the other senses I am fine with that. I actually trust visual sense information the least. Our brains work hard to make sense of what we see, even if it is not correct, (read up on how all the optical illusions as well as magic tricks work to understand why I trust visual sensory input the least out of the various sensory inputs.)
Or put another way, empirical evidence to me is stuff that is not just "talk." Human ideas being expressed without a basis or ties to reality. No empirical evidence for an idea and it remains just that, a random idea that can and should be dismissed as much as an other random idea humans come up with that is not empirically evidenced.
I think it is highly logical, sensible, reasonable, etc to ask for empirical evidence for any claim.
I think this statement is at the core of where you and I are very different.
I and others have stated this before, in many ways, and you still seem to not be able to grasp this basic concept:
It is silly/stupid/waste of time to prove a negative. My personal favorite example of this is:
"You, Jo owe me 1 million dollars"
Prove to me you do not.
If you can not prove it, will you pay me 1 million dollars? Why not?
Hint: it is impossible for you to prove that you do not owe me 1 million dollars. Can you figure out why?
Because I am trying to force you to prove a negative. Even if you do not think about it much, the assertion that you owe me 1 million dollars is silly. But can you explain why? If you can, you just answered why trying to disprove god exists is a silly/stupid/waste of time.
Yes I do.
You wrote the following in your #29 post:
"I cannot produce God for you so you can see or taste him.
There is no way to test God, as you would something in nature."
So, with you writing that, what evidence do you have? Or do you mean you have no empirical evidence, but have other kind of "evidence" for your god? I am interested in hearing that too.
(This is from your post #29 that I want to address.)
What evidence is that? Care to share this "evidence" that zeus does not exist? All though I do note that you did not want to talk about zeus much. Why not?
I am assuming you mean evidence that is not of the "empirical" kind. Realize to me, since you have presented no emperical evidence, that: I have every reason to suspect your "evidence" is just talk. Talk that is just as far flung from reality as cute cuddly god idea I just made up. (Both your god idea and my god idea could make all the exact same "claims" of "evidence." And since none of it is empirical none of it can be verified, so any random thought I have about any sort of god idea I make up is just as "evidenced" as your god idea.
Do you realize what you just stated here? You talked about things that can be empirically evidenced. And compared it to your god idea that cannot be empirically evidenced. Does this not set off any alarm bells in your head? That your god idea cannot be evidenced like 1+1 = 2 or that the earth is a sphere?
Cool I am just fine with call your evidence an argument. I think that is a more accurate way to describe it. But if all you can come up with is arguments, the same arguments I can use for whatever made up god idea I use, does that not worry you?
I am applying it to the various god ideas because that is what we are talking about. If we want to talk about something else controversial, say: human caused climate change, I would apply the same there.
This is a repeat/rephrase of an earlier subject in your post, can you provide empirical evidence that you do not owe me 1 million dollars? No. The reasons should be obvious, the same applies to all possible positions on the god idea. If a theist does provide empirical evidence, we could then examine that proposed evidence and perhaps put forth empirical evidence why that evidence does or does not prove god, but not before.
My base point here is: an idea remains an idea until its properly empirically evidenced, (shown to at least possibly be reality,) all the god ideas, since they are not empirical evidence, remain just that, just unevidenced (empirically) ideas. And ideas can and should be dismissed if they are unevidenced. Especially so when it is as incredibly and thoroughly investigated as the god ideas. (Not to mention the ENORMOUS claims that the various god ideas make, which further raises the standard the god ideas much reach to be consider something we should actually take action on.)
Nope, did not need to. The theist position was never empirically evidenced. So just like any other idea, I can dismiss it, just like you can and should dismiss that you owe me 1 million dollars. You do not have to prove to me that you do NOT owe me 1 million dollars, that is just silly. Just like an atheist should not have to empirically prove god does not exist, again a silly idea. Because the original claim was never empirically evidenced, and for a claim like this, empirical evidence is absolutely needed by me due to the incredible size and scope of the claim. (It changes EVERYTHING if your god idea was actually shown to be empirically evidenced.)
And that... should be a cause of deep concern for you, your god idea can not be empirically evidenced. As a believer in your particular god idea, that SHOULD be a huge cause of concern for you.
I am asking the one making the original claim for evidence. Do you not realize basic chronological order of things? Which claim came first? That there is a "god", or that there is no god? This is not a trick question, this should be answerable in .2 seconds, the god claim came first. People were not going around saying "your god idea is not empirically evidenced" before people were saying there is a god.
Not necessarily wrong, just someone making a huge assertion with zero evidence, then trying to push their unevidenced claim on other people, with some of those people throughout history profiting enormously from this unevidenced claim. And you have seen the conversations on these boards about the huge number of atrocities the many religions/god have done on humanity. The need for powerful empirical evidence is great, if I were to look past all that.
Uh yes it is. It does not prove absence, but it is compelling evidence for it.
If you are at a large stadium and you see no one else there, that does not "prove" there is no event currently at that stadium, but it sure makes it a reasonable conclusion.
You are technically correct, it is an argument from ignorance, but the initial argument "there is a god" is also is an argument for ignorance, so you are basically stating that: my argument of ignorance is invalidated by your argument of ignorance. Using the same rules for both. Another reason why the burden must remain with the person(s) making the claim, it is silly and foolish to do otherwise.
We should not even be having this conversation. The way is supposed to work is:
Theist: My god idea is real! You should believe in it too!
Me::::: Do you have any empirical evidence for you god idea?
Me::::: So not a claim, just an idea. Why should I believe in your particular god idea if it's not evidenced? Out of an infinite set of different possible god ideas that are all of equal merit, (not empirically evidenced.)
Theist: ....silence.... (a smarter theist would realize their particular god idea is just as unevidenced as all the other god ideas they do not believe in, including the 800 trillion different nameless god ideas I just made up this last second.)
- end of conversation -
Yay, so glad you understand that!
It may seem rigged to you, but back to my claim that you owe me a million dollars. You obviously are not going to pay it, but then like you say for your "god idea" I can say the same for my claim that you owe me 1 million dollars. "If it is impossible for me to produce the evidence then it just a rigged requirement!" So, based on your argument you just presented: are going to mail me a check for a million dollars? Because I said your requirement for me to evidence my claim is "rigged" ?
This is true. A claimant claiming something and trying to pass it off as reality/truth, that will not produce evidence for it, is in the wrong. A million and one con's start this way.
I go way beyond that, all ideas. Not just "isms." But that is nothing special about me. For almost any other aspect in your life, I can almost guarantee that you also require empirical evidence before you act on it. If you did not at all, you would likely be dead, but if not, pennyless living on the street eating thrown away food from people that do act on empirical evidence. For the exact same reasons you are not going to mail me a check for 1 million dollars, is the same reason I reject your god idea completely. If I could actually empirically evidence that you owe me 1 million dollars, I would go to a court of law and take it from you with said empirical evidence. I would not even have to ask you if you "believe me" or ask you to send me a check.
But I do not have any empirical evidence, that you owe me 1 million dollars. I could create all kinds of "other evidence" like you say you have for your god idea, thats easy, it is just words. It is at this point where you realize the whole notion of you owing me 1 million dollars is completely ridiculous, something you can dismiss without explaining why, why you can if you want simply ignore me. Why quite frankly it is in your right to even consider me a fool for even trying to claim you owe me 1 million dollars.
Get it yet? The same conclusion above about the million dollars applies to your, (and any other,) god idea that is not empirically evidenced. Why? Simply because as you said, your god idea is not empirically evidenced. And that the "other" evidence is worthless because "other" evidence could easily be endlessly manufactured in our heads because it has no basis in reality.
“Or put another way, empirical evidence to me is stuff that is not just "talk." Human ideas being expressed without a basis or ties to reality. No empirical evidence for an idea and it remains just that, a random idea that can and should be dismissed as much as another random idea humans come up with that is not empirically evidenced.”
Does Atheism meet your requirements as you described them in this quote?
Is Atheism just “talk” as you describe it?
Here are some things that empirical evidence cannot be provided for.
I am sure you use or believe in these.
History (you can’t directly observe it, smell it, or perform test on it)
I agree that empiricism is a great tool, but should it be our only tool?
Is it applicable to everything?
You may not realize it, but you are essentially making this claim:
If God existed, empirical evidence would be able to be provided to evidence his existence.
Where is your empirical evidence for this claim?
Does the “burden of proof belong to the one making the claim” come from empiricism?
Isn’t it a rule of logic?
The premise you start with (burden proof) is not empirical, it is philosophical.
If I tell you that I taped the 1 million dollars I “owe” you under a chair in your kitchen.
You could just say you have lack of faith that I did that.
You could require me to show up and provide empirical evidence of the 1m.
But the best thing would be for you to look yourself.
Then you would have 1 million dollars, or KNOW that there is not 1m under your chair.
Do you see the weakness of the passive approach and the strength of the other?
Lack of faith or requiring others to evidence something may win a debate.
It may even be a good starting point, but to end there seems empty to me.
If you don’t look under the chair you never get the 1m.
Or you never get to KNOW that the 1m does not exist.
Isn’t that a better way of addressing it?
Isn’t being proactive better than passivity?
Isn’t answering it for yourself better than requiring others to evidence it for you?
@Jo Re: Lengthy reply to Logic
...*face palm*... *groan*... Ugh. Again?... *shaking head sadly*... Astounding, Jo. Absolutely astounding... *golf clap*... I must admit it is almost impressive how incredibly impervious you are to learning simple and VERY basic concepts. And it begs the question of, "Are you intentionally refusing to acknowledge what you have been told, or are you genuinely incapable of processing elementary explanations?" In case you are not aware, there ARE some very good resources available nowadays for people with learning disorders. Just tossing that out there for you.
One simply has to look on in awe and wonder when/if you will ever realize that repeating the same half-baked nonsense over and over and over in different formats does not make that nonsense any more valid than the first time you presented it. It is STILL the SAME half-baked nonsense. And the fact that you seem totally unable to grasp that is... well... it's a bit perplexing, to put it mildly. Such a shame, too. Because with this New Year being 2020, it would appear your hindsight is no better than your foresight.... *shrugging shoulders*...
Can you give me one specific "half-baked nonsense" that I am repeating, and why it is nonsense.
I think a half-baked cookie is better than no cookie at all. :-)
How many times must we explain that it is incumbent on the claimant to prove their claim?
It takes 767 attempts (maximum) for an adult to "get it". I wonder if Jo is attempting to set a new record.
Same old lying BS Jo, is your lack of belief in unicorns just talk?
This next bit is hilarious Jo, even for you..
1. Logic is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation Jo, we can absolutely evidence that these ideas and principles exist, and we can test their efficacy, you once again have only illustrated that you haven't even a basic grasp of what logic is.
2. Seriously Jo, are you really claiming the existence of human reasoning can't be empirically evidenced? This forum is littered with empirical evidence for it's existence, that's the dumbest thing you've said for some time.
3. Again the sheer stupidity that the existence of human ethics can't be empirically evidenced is risible.
4. Morals are the ability to recognise the difference between right and wrong behaviours, now just for a second and for once Jo, do take a moment to ask yourself is we can empirically evidence whether humans, and other animals can differentiate between right and wrong behaviours. Again the rank stupidity has me actually feeling sorry for you, if your claim was sincere.
5. This is my favourite, you have heard of archaeology haven't you Jo? Finding coins and pottery imprinted to commemorate historical events and people Jo, would these not be empirical evidence to support those historical claims in "Jo world"?
No he isn't Jo, no matter how many times you rehash this lie. It's an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, yet again. There either is objective for something or there is not, and you are a hypocrite as well as a liar, since you set that very standard for all your beliefs except theism.
That's a claim Jo, so I have a choice to accept the veracity of logic, which can be empirically tested, or accept your inane dishonest BS, guess where I just place my chips?
Christ, you don't know what empirical evidence is do you? Here's a clue looking under the chair and seeking sufficient empirically evidence are the same thing, you're just describing one method of obtaining it, by testing the unevidenced claim. Where do you look for physical evidence of a deity exactly?
Liar, I have asked you to list 6 beliefs that form no part of your religious beliefs that you hold without any objective evidence and you couldn't even offer one. Just because you need the comfort blanket of theism doesn't validate it at all..
Again all you're doing is describing a method for empirically testing an unevidenced claim. Is your deity under a chair Jo, taped to it? Can you demonstrate this risible idea you're espousing? Of course you can't, you're simply drawing a facile and ridiculously false analogy. Have you looked "properly" for unicorns Jo? Are they taped under a chair maybe? Seriously do you not see how ridiculous your claim that your unevidenced belief is somehow validated by esoteric knowledge, it's utterly laughable Jo, especially as you don't allow this woo woo method for a single other belief outside of your religious beliefs, proving that you demand sufficient objective evidence for everything you believe except theism, that's called bias Jo.
@Sheldon: So much more polite than I was going to be. After I picked my jaw up off the floor, I thought this stupidity needed its own place in history and started a thread as politely as I was able. I can't even recall an idea being expressed as ignorant as what has been expressed here. Is there a depth limit to ignorance?
The more he posts the more I am convinced there is no limit to Jo's mendacity. The level of ignorance is manifest, how much of it is deliberate and dishonest only Jo can really know. He is however, as his posts have evidenced beyond any reasonable doubt, devoid of integrity.
That 9th commandment trips up a surprising amount of theists...
Another belief you cannot remotely evidence, and a stark reminder of how dishonest you are Jo, as you relentlessly demand atheists evidence their lack of belief in all the deities you believe do not exist.
You are the mother and father of all liars Jo, and I don't believe you are as idiotically unaware as you pretend.
@JO: No No No No No NO!
1. 1. You are making the claim, yet you want me to refute your claim.
This, once again, is you making bullshit assertions. The theist is making the claim. The atheists are not accepting the claim. NO ONE NEEDS TO REFUTE THE CLAIM.; THE CLAIMS ARE FALLACIOUS, HAVE NOT MET THE BURDEN OF PROOF AND CAN BE REJECTED.
2. No one is making the assertion that there is no evidence for God Not Existing. You are attempting to address two prongs of a dilemma at the same time. God either exists of it does not exist. If you assert it exists you must provide evidence for that assertion. If you assert something called god does not exist, you must provide evidence for that assertion. ALL ANYONE HAS EVER SAID IS THAT "YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR YOUR GOD CLAIM." Unless of course in all that drivel you have actually asserted the existence of a god that actually does not exist. So far your god, that I am aware of, is just an amorphous construct.
3. NO! If your god exists, what evidence do you have? The fact that you are producing nothing at all is not our fault. Nothing is rigged. If your god is real and has a real impact on this world then we would like to see what that impact is. If he has no impact on this world, he is fucking useless and we may as well go on not believing in him.
4. Please demonstrate the evidence. The only person making a claim is you. (Because something has not been proved it does not exist is a BLACK SWAN FALLACY.) The argument from ignorance is "I CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING ELSE SO IT MUST BE A GOD." Jo, you are demonstrably ignorant. You know nothing about the things of which you speak. If you went away, not a soul on the site would miss you.
5. You already tried to shift the burden of proof with this one in step 3. It did not work then and it will not work now. ATHEISM IS NOT A POSITION THAT REQUIRES EVIDENCE FOR ANYTHING. ATHEISM IS ONLY MAKING THE CLAIM THAT YOU HAVE NOT PROVED YOUR ASSERTION THAT GOD EXISTS. The standard of empirical evidence does apply to everyone. As soon as you catch an atheist making a claim, you ask them for the evidence to their claim. It's just that frigging simple.
You do not get to shift the burden of proof by creating a STRAW MAN position for the atheists and assert that Atheism is about denying the existence of a god. You just don't get to do that. When you clearly and accurately describe your version of god. Then we can challenge those attributes and logically decide if that sort of a God could exist or not. Until you give out the information needed to determine existence, there is no reason to treat your claims with anything but derision. You might as well be a flat earther trying to convince us the penguins are committing suicide by jumping off the edge. You sound like a dweeb.
"God either exists of it does not exist."
I say he does.
What do you say?
Can you provide me with "SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CLAIM"?
Can you provide me with
@Jo: Which god. You have to define your version of a god. I don't need evidence until I make a claim. I can provide you with nothing but evidence. Why would I say something stupid without the evidence to back it up?
Why don't you stop shifting the burden of proof. You say there is a god. Provide the evidence you have for that god. I do not have to "not believe" in a god to see that your claims are fallacious. They are fallacious whether or not a god does not exist.
As with every single time you have used this argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy Jo, I say I don't believe your claim Jo, since you cannot demonstrate any objective evidence, nor any rational argument for it. Sadly your posts show you're too dumb, and or, dishonest to understand.
In what objective way does Zeus differ from the deity you believe exists? I disbelieve in Zeus for the same reason I disbelieve in your deity and all else, because there is no objective evidence, because no compelling rational arguments exist, and because when they are presented as you do, in an unfalsifiable way they are indistinguishable in any objective way from nonexistent things.
Nor is finding unicorns or mermaids, so this asinine claim you keep repeating no more validates your deity than it does unicorns and mermaids.
The answer is the same as every other time you have tried this lie, because it represents an epistemological claim. Again in what objective way does your deity differ from Santa Claus?
No it isn't, and as we have seen you haven't even the most basic grasp of logic, as this stupid evasive response shows. If he had claimed the lack of evidence proved no deity exists then yes this would be a fallacy, but he, unlike you and all the other theists, has the erudition and intelligence to know he cannot make such a claim as it is epistemologically and rationally false. You it seems still don't understand this.
Another dishonest reversal of the facts Jo, you are a theist, thus his claim is challenging you to evidence yours, as a belief is the affirmation of a claim, and of course he is merely reiterating your own admission that you cannot, and have no empirical evidence. One does not ask someone to evidence a claim they have not asserted is valid. Only theists do this with for example their appeal to ignorance fallacies about the origins of the universe and organic life.
As are you then for all the deities you believe are not real, as well as things like unicorns and mermaids. Except atheism is setting the same standard for all claims, and you are making an exception for just one, that the deity you believe in is real, despite being unable to demonstrate a shred of objective evidence. You are using an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy again Jo. Atheism has no burden of proof, since it is not a belief, but the lack or absence of one, despite your lies to the contrary, any dictionary exposes this lie of course.
Another lie he made no such assertion, but again to expose you bias and dishonesty here Jo, please list some things other than your deity, and that are nothing to do with your religious beliefs that no objective evidence can be demonstrated for. We already know you cannot offer even one.
Other than you publicly declaring it, and marrying her, and staying loyally with her you mean? Dear oh dear Jo, but you make some incredibly stupid assertions, you really do.
Nor any other non existent things,, does this validate their existence then Jo,, if not then again your biased hypocrisy is laid bare, and again atheists here all appear at least to be setting one standard for belief, open minded and unbiased.
That is a bare appeal to numbers Jo, an argumentum ad populum fallacy, dear oh dear JO, the tedious and relentless way you churn out fallacies is impressive in its own way. Can you demonstrate any of this evidence Jo? as you, and every singe theist I've ever encountered fails to do this when asked. Offering the same collection of unevidenced anecdotal claims, and fallacious arguments.
Well the hilarity of you of all people making such a claim is palpable. However you're also lying again, as atheism is not a claim, nor did he make the assertion you are falsely accusing him of, and once again it is you who sets this biased exception for your religious beliefs, whereas atheists maintain an open minded and objective stance for all beliefs.
Oh the hilarity, it does, and atheists withhold beliefs from all claims where insufficient objective or empirical evidence cannot be demonstrated, you and other theists hypocritically do not, as has been shown by your and their inability to offer a single belief other your religious beliefs you hold without any objective evidence.
And lastly as we can see you have yet again asked someone to present evidence that contradicts your assertion a deity exists, this is the very definition of an argument from ignorance fallacy Jo.
Your relentless mendacity is nauseating Jo. However it won't change the fact that theism is a belief and thus the affirmation of a claim, and therefore carries a burden of proof, whereas atheism is simply the lack or absence of that belief,
"If I asserted that God does not exist, would you not accept that assertion?"
Of course not, that assertion requires proof or evidence.
Jo, you fail to grasp this simple concept, that if one makes an assertion, it is incumbent on them to be able to provide proof or evidence supporting their assertion.
@ David Killens
I grasp that the one making the assertion should provide the evidence.
If there are four people making assertions.
And none of them can provide evidence.
But you only ask one of the four for evidence.
You are just trying to make that one look wrong, and the others right.
I have asked you this before and have not seen your answer.
Should I conclude the same as you did for me? I do not.
How would you answer a Denier?
Would you say you have lack of faith in the claim that God does not exist?
Do you ask for "proof" or evidence from them?
Have they provided it? Are you convinced?
What about an Agnostic?
If someone says we cannot know, do you ask for evidence?
I am trying to apply the same standards, and the same skepticism to all of the "isms".
There aren't four people, this is a dishonest false analogy you've created. There is only one (person) making an assertion in this context, and that is theism, atheism simply doesn't believe that assertion.
NB I will never tire, nor will I desist, from pointing out your duplicity, even though you also lack the integrity to acknowledge my posts.
"If there are four people making assertions.
And none of them can provide evidence.
But you only ask one of the four for evidence.
You are just trying to make that one look wrong, and the others right."
No Jo, there is no double standard. It has been explained to you countless times that it is incumbent on the claimant to prove their case. But this is where you stumble, you categorize a "I do not accept" as a claim.
If you claim d a god existed, my response is "I do not accept your claim". It is not the same as "god does not exist".
I don't think his dishonesty here is unintentional. At first I thought it was a lack of comprehension, when I confronted Jo that he was being repeatedly dishonest, he simply stopped responding directly to my posts, but continues to post the same dishonest misrepresentation of a lack of belief as the affirmation of a contrary claim to the belief. It seems to be a fallacious argument much in vogue with theists, who have probably read it used by apologists, but either lack the erudition or the integrity, or both, to see it is simply an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy to reverse the burden of proof.
Try asking Jo if he believes in invisible garden fairies, then ask him to show his objective evidence they don't exist. If he won't or can't do this, then the dishonest hypocrisy of his claim is manifest. Similarly ask him to list 6 beliefs he holds without any objective evidence, but that form NO PART of his religious beliefs, again his failure on this makes his dishonesty manifest.
Similarly ask any theist who denies the scientific fact of evolution to list any other scientific facts they deny that in no way contradict any part of their religious beliefs, and again the hypocritical bias is manifest.
Breezy made point of evading that last one relentlessly, while insisting on making grandiloquent claims about his superior scientific credentials as an unqualified student in an unrelated field, the hilarity seemed lost on him.
Edit: spelling and grammar.
A good summation Sheldon.
I have also concluded that Jo is deliberately being an asshole just for 1) a response or 2) hoping he can redefine terms to his advantage. My position is that he will not be allowed to redefine terms to suit his belief system.
@Jo Re: Sports analogy
...*shaking head in sad amusement*... Holy Jesus fucking Christ on a greasy splintered corndog stick... *chuckle*... I just gotta ask: Are you on some sort of mission to intentionally look as dense as a person can possibly look? If so, then congratulations! Because over the last few days your posts have made a neutron star seem light and fluffy in comparison. Bravo!... *golf clap*....
I should add, of course, that I sincerely do hope you are being intentional with your dastardly displays of morosely mundane mental malaise. For if you truly do not realize the blatant absurdity of your recent posts and the sheer unadulterated nonsense contained within them, then it honestly makes me sad for you. Seriously. You really should consider seeking some form of psychiatric counseling. I mean that in all sincerity.
That being said, it should also be noted that your being here as a representative of the Christian faith could be considered a direct reflection of all other Christians. And, quite frankly, your obvious dishonesty and your willful aversion to grasping simple/basic concepts does not a good impression make. Fortunately, I happen to know quite a few honest and decent Christians of various denominations, and I am fairly confident they would be appalled and embarrassed by your behavior on here. Because whether you are intentionally trolling , or whether you are (sadly) woefully ignorant of your less-than-flattering "Christian representation", your behavior on here is such that it could easily turn others away from your beloved god. Just a little something for you to chew on a bit, Jo.
@ RE: Yes, all analogies are inaccurate to a degree. The idea is to get the point across. Atheists are non-participants in the God game. If you like we can make up a fantasy game. Call it "Stupid is as Stupid does." The rules do not matter to me as I do not play it. There is no term for a non-player until we turn "Stupid is as Stupid does" into a religion. At that point all non-players become "heathen, non-players, non-believers, apostates, and atheists."
RE: You do not “believe” in playing any kind of sport? Don’t you just choose not to? Why assume belief is a choice. Can you choose not to believe in God? Can you choose to believe I am right and you are wrong? I do not believe in your god as it is unconvincing. You believe in your God for some unknown reason that you are keeping to yourself, most likely because exposing it would make you look foolish.
If someone were to say that God does not exist. Would you say you do not believe that claim to be true? NO! I ask them to define their god, just as you have been asked. Only the definition can be debunked. After all, that is all there seems to be.
RE: Santa: It depends on the definition. My understanding is that there actually was a Saint Nick. Saint Nicholas - Patron Saint, Feast Day & Santa - Biography https://www.biography.com/religious-figure/saint-nicholas What are you defining as Santa and what evidence do you have for the claim?
RE: "“If your God is out there, it will be a scientist that finds it.” It is not a claim. Read it again. It begins with the word "IF." I did not say; "Your god is out there and science will find it." The point is, you have stopped looking as you think you know the answer. Science is still looking for answers. IF anyone is going to stumble across anything called God, it will be the people looking and not the closed minded who think they already know.
YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE NO IDEA AT ALL WHAT A "CLAIM" IS.
1. an assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt.
2. a demand or request for something considered one's due.
3. state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
The fact that science is doing the exploring and you are sitting on your ass pretending you know the answers is all the evidence required for the assertion I have made.
a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief.
Oh look, another failed attempt at a "gotcha" by a supernaturalist. And a duplicitous one at that, given my previous voluminous output on this very subject ...
No it isn't a postulate, it is, once again, suspicion of unsupported supernaturalist assertions. And its value lies in pointing out that those supernaturalist assertions are unsupported by anything recognisable as genuine evidence, as understood in a range of rigorous academic disciplines.
You've been told this repeatedly.
What the fuck has this got to do, with the fact that supernaturalist assertions are bereft of evidential support? Nothing. If's a fake attempt to conflate entirely different topics for duplicitous apologetic reasons.
Oh, and that article is plain, flat, wrong, with respect to its conclusion. Because, as I have already pointed out with respect to Steinhardt & Turok's work, which implies a multiverse by the operation of its central mechanism, their work IS testable, and scientists are busy assembling the instruments to perform the test. I even stated explicitly the nature of the test being performed. You've been told all of this repeatedly here, which now leads me to conclude that your latest outing is merely typical supernaturalist mendacity in action.
Calilasseia: " Atheists dispense with belief altogether. "
Do you believe your own statement ?
Lets put it to the test , if you say "yes , I believe in my statement above", then the statement is false , atheists do not dispense with belief because they believe the statement that "atheists dispense with belief altogether." Can we be honest here ? To not believe one
postulate is to hold to another until that postulate becomes no longer tenable , and the question begged is , what do you believe now ?
RE: Item six.
Waves , energy , primordial gravitational waves, singularities , etc. are all natural phenomenon and are included in the stuff of the known universe unless you are claiming these physical elements are somehow responsible for the creation of the universe and existed prior to "nature" ? Are these invisible forces the supernatural explanation postulated by atheistic materialists for the creation of the universe ? Did all of nature, in your view, have a beginning or is there an eternal elemental natural phenomenon cosmological
physicists are hoping to discover ? Can do without the ad hominem ad nauseam infinitum stuff but how can natural phenomenon (of which the universe is a prime example ) be the cause of all of nature given that nature is the effect ? In other words, how can the effect be it's own cause ? How can a natural explanation ever hope to be discovered if Nature didn't exist yet ?
"how can natural phenomenon (of which the universe is a prime example ) be the cause of all of nature given that nature is the effect ? In other words, how can the effect be it's own cause ? How can a natural explanation ever hope to be discovered if Nature didn't exist yet ?"
You are referencing the results of science, where the beginning of this universe is projected back 13.8 billion years to a singularity. The problem is that we have currently been unable to go further back in time. Before then? We have no reference, no model to study, no way of investigating or measuring pre-big bang conditions.
The honest answer is that we do not know what the conditions were before the big bang. Vochensmut you are implying, by stating " if Nature didn't exist yet". So please prove your assertion that you know what went on before the big bang. If you don't know, then you are spouting horseshit. If you do know (seriously) then you are absolutely guaranteed the Nobel, the fame and fortune that accompanies that.
One of two things will happen, you will be on the headlines for many years and rich and famous, or you will just spout more ancient superstitious unfounded crap in this forum.
So please prove your assertion that you know what went on before the big bang.
" So please prove your assertion that you know what went on before the big bang...........We have no reference, no model to study, no way of investigating or measuring pre-big bang conditions."
With no reference and no model the atheist is left with Absolutely Nothing as a reference point ? What makes more sense , that noone created everything out of nothing or someone created everything out of nothing . Ultimate reality comes in two flavors, Absolutely Nothing or Absolutely Something . Absolutely Nothing would be an an uncaused , spaceless , timeless , unchanging eternal state of non -existence. Absolutely Something would be an uncaused , spaceless , timeless , eternal self -existent Spirit (not made of stuff) . I prefer to stay sane and rational by adhering to the more logical and non-contradictory
option that grounds existence in Something like Aristotle's Unmoved Mover rather than in the midair of Nothingness .
I will repeat my question since you evaded it.
"So please prove your assertion that you know what went on before the big bang."
Not what I know, I am asking you to prove your assertion.
I caught that, an attempt to slip in the assumption that something made something or nothing. You are attempting to argue your god into existence. Another possibility is that natural causes are behind all of it.
Or to put it simply, if Nature can create itself then all reason and rationality are out the window . The law of non-contradiction has left the building again , for something cannot exist prior to itself otherwise you've just given up all ground to the monotheists who could say the same about God ? But one God who Is and is the Uncaused Cause of all things is not a stretch of the imagination anymore than if
there were Absolutely Nothing rather than Absolutely Something . There could've been Absolutely Nothing and when you contemplate that i.e. Nothing for a while ,
you end up with an uncaused , spaceless , timeless, unchanging , infinite state of non-existence forever . But Absolutely Something must exist and if it does , and of course it does because we now know from the things that exist that Absolutely Something (or Someone) must exist who is unchanging , spaceless , timeless , Self -existent rather than non -existent , infinite in extent and (thereby leaving no room for the existence of any other God to exist) , not made of stuff but is Spirit and so on . All rational beings can consider these things and conclude there must be a God and that kind of God is very scary . We all know this God exists intuitively and it takes a lot of mental gymnastics to attempt to explain him away . Why the very fact that books and debates rage on about this topic of the existence of God (or not) proves that He must exist , for to argue against him is to argue for him , how so you say ?
When is the last time you read a book or debated a believer in leprechauns (eerie silence ) ? Because we ALL know they don't exist therefore save your breath and your time on the subject , right ? Well the reason this debate rages on is due to the fact that we ALL
know God exists . Only a fool would say there is no God and run the risk of facing him head on .