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.
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.
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.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
The validity of an argument does not depend on its premises/postulates being true.
------------------------------------------------------------------
That was not my argument.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Again; one of us seems to be suffering from a serious cognitive defect.
@ Nyarlathotep
Would you please state what your argument is, for this one who is suffering from a serious cognitive defect?
@Jo
A recap:
----------------------------------------------------------
I then gave you a list of postulates:
Then I provided a simple argument showing those postulates lead to a contradiction, which means one (or more) of those postulates is false. It is up to the reader to deiced which postulate(s) to reject.
@ Nyarlathotep
Me thinks these one word answers are a trap, but here it goes. I choose D to reject.
Please explain why D has anything to do with A, B, and C?
Wouldn't an example that doesn't require such a high a level of knowledge in math or physics would be better?
@Jo
replied at end of thread to reset nesting.
@Nyarlathotep
Thanks for the explanation. I knew nothing about this and your patience and explanation made the bulb light up.
Wish I can borrow your brain for a day. I love to learn about science and the laws!!
Reading what you are describing without any thoughts of rebuttal or rejection really helps to understand.
@Jo: RE: It looks to me like a logical fallacy. Similar to, can God create a square circle, or a rock so big he cannot move it.
It is not a logical fallacy and the answer is yes. If you think I am going to tell you why, you are mistaken. Were you well versed in Eastern Philosophies the positive response would come to you as easily as the rest of the BS you spout. We know one thing about this god you are speaking of. He is limited by logical fallacies in your mind. If he has limits, how can you call it god?
postulate 1: Rejected. You can not get to postulate 2 or 3 without first proving the existence of a God.
@Jo Have you heard Leo Gura on this notion of falsifiability?
@Jo
The lead in water analogy is a terrible one.
You can find lead, (we know it exists!) Already this destroys the analogy. To be a similar analogy we would have to have easy obvious definitive proof that "god" exists, but wanted to test and see if god exists say in the US instead of just.. say.. Jerusalem. Which is obviously silly on many different levels.
Lead content in water is a very very different test with very different parameters then god. Get sensitive enough equipment and I can probably almost guarantee I can find some trace amount in the last gulp of water you or any person had most recently taken. Really we just test for lead in water to make sure they do not reach toxic levels that can harm us. Even "distilled" water will likely have trace amounts of lead, perhaps in parts per trillion, perhaps in such low numbers even the most sensitive equipment we have available yet cannot pick it up, but it is still there, and we can easily "add" lead at any time. Can't do that with the god concept.
Claims/proofs against god in general oftentimes come up unfalsifiable, why? Because the god concept itself has been made (by humans,) made to be not falsifiable.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
@ LogicFTW
I agree that my lead in water analogy is not that great. Is there any analogy that works when discussing God?
"Claims against god in general oftentimes come up as unfalsifiable, because humans made the god concept not falsifiable".
Is your above claim falsifiable?
Some unfalsifiable claims are really falsifiable?
Something can be made to be unfalsifiable, but is really falsifiable?
Please explain your claim that some concept can be unfalsifiable because it was made to be not falsifiable. I feel like a pretzel :-).
@Jo
My base claim is actually:
"humans are capable of fiction and/or lying. Something anyone can verify as true or false easily enough with themselves, 1000 times a day if they wanted to.
Back to the subject at hand, is my claim that: humans made the god concept not falsifiable. First you may noticed I avoided absolutes, adding in words like "oftentimes" something that is distinctly missing in much of the god claims.
2nd my claim is falsifiable if anyone could actually "prove" their god or prove some part of their god claim is falsifiable.
3rd. It should be plainly obvious that humans made the god concept. No humans no god. It is not like we can go to mars, or even the moon, or even some never before seen spot on earth and find signs of god where there was no humans. Pretty falsifiable in my book.
With words on a concept that exist only in human heads it is actually quite easy to make it unfalsifiable.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
@ Logic FTW
You said "my claim is falsifiable if anyone could actually "prove" their god or prove some part of their god claim is falsifiable."
You make a claim (humans made the god concept not falsifiable), then say it is the responsibility of someone else to produce evidence against your claim. Because no one has produced evidence (acceptable to you) against your claim, than it is valid? I don't think that is how logic works.
You cannot say your claim is valid because no one has falsified it. Is your claim actually falsifiable?
@Jo
Lets see if I can clean this up and simplify this.
I make the claim that some people define their god in a way that makes it "unfalsifiable." This based on my observation of many various religious ideas I have been exposed to.
A short summary of claims that led me to this conclusion:
-"god exist outside space and time" (Makes god unfalsifiable to any possible real "evidence", would you agree?)
-"God is so complex and greater than us we can not possibly understand his methods and reasoning. (An attempt to stop any reason/logic argument pointing out contradictions etc.)
-"You cannot know god until you "embrace" god and "take a leap of faith" or similar language. Pretty much right there in the sentence, you must abandon any skepticism, and simply believe because someone told you to, (humans told you to, not even "god" says this.)
-"You are not interpreting the phrase/line/book/scripture/etc correctly. Making even a bible (written/edited/translated/printed/distributed/etc by humans) not open to criticism or falsifying of any type.
There is more like this if you want me to list them.
There; I pointed out ways religions make their god concept unfalsifiable. How can we test this? Well, I can start by saying I just made up a religion that we both agree I just made up and is extremely likely to be completely false. Then I apply the above rules to it. And wham now I, just shown a made up on the spot god idea we hopefully both agree IS FALSE, to be un-falsifiable using the very same techniques religions use.
------
Brilliant! If only you applied this thinking to your own particular god concept!
------
My claim that god is unfalsifiable, is that claim it self unfalsifiable? Well it can be made false simply by stating some part of your original claim that god is real, in a way that could be tested and shown to be false. SImple as that.
If you claimed, "my god(s) is/are real, go to Mount Olympus and find them in a temple and have a chat with them and have them show you their godly powers." I would say "great, your god is falsifiable," I could make that journey and find out for myself. Just like that, wham suddenly god concept is falsifiable.
My claim is falsifiable because every religious idea in the world has the opportunity to present something about their god that could be falsifiable, but I have yet to see a major religion do this. (Hmm I wonder why??? Oh I can make a good guess to why!) Humans have, being painted into a corner, have defined their god out of existence in effort to keep it above any sort of criticism or real inquiry to actual study that might find results contrary to what the people invested in a particular god idea would like.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
@ LogicFTW
Are you saying that falsifiability equals truth?
Is the claim that there is no God falsifiable?
No and no.
I think that something that is not falsifiable is a powerful indicator that it could be bogus, made up, a lie etc. And the opposite, something that is falsifiable, can be an indicator of truth, but sadly is not a cure all "truth" indicator. We humans struggle a lot with what is true or not, and the "falsifiability test" can be a helpful tool but it does not give us immediate answers, just a good starting point. A way to quickly filter out the likelihood of any claim being true or not.
I gave an example of a god idea that was falsifiable with like gods sitting on mount Olympus, a real mountain I could go climb to the peak of myself! (a reference to greek gods incase you missed it.) Did you ignore that example because you do not consider greek gods to be real? Why not?
God is a human made concept, a word humans made that I am increasingly finding has a very fluid definition with many people switching around the definition to suit them. Is the underlining broad concept of god behind the word god real? Well so far all indications say "nope!"
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
@ LogicFTW
I asked "Is the claim that there is no God falsifiable?" You said "no".
Are you also saying that the claim "there is a God" also not falsifiable?
Trying to see where we agree/disagree and if my understanding of your statements are correct.
@Jo
The way lots of believers set it up, yes that claim is also not falsifiable. But really it comes down to how people define their god or "is there a god" how that god is defined. If there is for even a possibility of a certain god idea, literature in it like: "outside space and time" undetectable, cannot be partially/fully understood. Then yes, it should obviously follow that god and "is there a god" is not falsifiable if "god" is setup that way.
If someone says, god that lives up in mount olympus, go up there and see for yourself, then I would say that god is falsifiable.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮I am an atheist that always likes a good debate
▮Please include @LogicFTW for responses to me
▮Tips on forum use. ▮ A.R. Member since 2016.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
@ LogicFTW
I think we agree on your previous post.
Would you say the same for the claim "there is no God" is falsifiable as you said above about the opposite claim? In other words, the claim "God does/does not exist" is not falsifiable unless it is on Mt Olympus?
@Jo
It is a claim of negation for an unfalsifiable concept. Yes it is also unfalsifiable, if the original claim (instead of negation of) is unfalsifiable it follows the counter claim can, and oftentimes is also unfalsifiable.
I claim you owe me 1 million dollars, (unfalsifiable claim,) you claim the negation of that, (you do not owe me 1 million dollars) that claim is also unfalsifiable. Does that mean since your negation claim is not falsifiable, we should accept the original claim that I made? Has my claim gain any credibility that I pointed out the counterclaim is also unfalsifiable?
Well let's say I am not expecting a check for 1 million dollars in the mail anytime soon...
@Jo.
"There is a big difference between believing in God and believing in gods." No there isn't. It is all unsubstantiated fantasy.
"Claiming there is a God is non-falsifiable." Depending on the definition. Most gods are defined out of existence. Those attempted to be explained within existence fail.
"Evidence of absence only applies if your test can actually test for God." NO! It applies when I can test for the absence of god. Any assertion made by the religious that can affect the world we live in is testable. Prayer studies are a perfect example. Absence of evidence is in fact evidence of absence.
"Using your line of reasoning I could say that life did not originally occur through natural processes on the earth. Thousands of brilliant scientists have been trying to figure out how life occurred through natural processes for decades." (You are literally correct. We do not know how life came to be on the earth. We do have actual evidence for "natural processes." It seems the most likely candidate. We have no evidence at all for magical creator beings. I happen to like the idea that the universe itself is a living thing. (Like... not believe.) "Belief is allocated to the degree of evidence." Best evidence suggests a natural causation to life.
Proving some claims about God are false, does not prove God does not exist. "Some." How many claims? 6000 years of claims. All asserted by the theists about all gods. All shown to be false or non-falsifiable. Insane babbling, outrageous claims, complete bullshit, and con artists raping the general public over and over and over. I would say the naysayers are on very solid ground. Belief is asserted to the degree of evidence available.
You have not given any positive test that can be performed for the non existence of God. (You clearly have no uderstanding of evidence for non-existence. Reference the cave analogy once again. A completely valid and respected way of demonstrating no bear has been in the cave. ) Clearly, you are allowing your dualistic black and white, religiously motivated, absolutist thinking to impose on your reason and logic. You can not grasp the concept that belief is allocated to the degree of evidence. Go back and read the cave analogy again. NO ONE MADE THE ASSERTION THAT THERE IS NO GOD. / BEAR in the cave. What was the assertion made? "Absence of evidence is in fact Evidence of Absence." If it were not, scientists would simply continue doing the same experiment over and over and over while expecting a different result. The Absence of evidence is a completely valid scientific finding and it can lead us to completely valid scientific conclusions. "There is no reason to believe a bear was ever in the cave and there is no reason to believe a God or gods ever actually existed." (Are you unaware of the idea that nothing can be actually known with 100% certainty?) You can prove there is a God by producing him. So what have you got? When you give me nothing, I am completely justified in telling you that you have nothing. Whatever you are talking about is nothing. Non-existent.
Cog: ""There is no reason to believe a bear was ever in the cave and there is no reason to believe a God or gods ever actually existed." (Are you unaware of the idea that nothing can be actually known with 100% certainty?) You can prove there is a God by producing him. So what have you got? When you give me nothing, I am completely justified in telling you that you have nothing. Whatever you are talking about is nothing. Non-existent."
...or, flippantly, the accumulation of the total lack of evidence for god(s) amounts to a strong indication of non-existence of a god/gods.
Don't forget there is also LOTS of evidence that the various god ideas were made up by man.
While not directly disproving any possible god idea, showing the mountains of evidence that god was made up by man further weakens the already extremely weak argument that god (of any type really) is real.
@ Cognostic
You said in response to my statement "Jo- There is a big difference between believing in God and believing in gods."Cog- No there isn't. It is all unsubstantiated fantasy."
Your statement about God and gods being the same is like an anarchist saying that democracy and dictatorship are the same. It is just one less, and all government are equally bad.
It is also like saying monogamy is the same as group marriage. Two very different things.
I did not respond to your bear in the caver analogy because it was not a close comparison. A bear in a cave is similar to God in a cave? But you are right with the bear. With the test you devised you could provide great evidence that there is, or is not a bear in the cave. But how do you test for the presence or absence of God in the cave? That is the real question. Is God a large furry animal? Will he show up on your camera or leave scat?
Your claim that ALL claims by theists about God have been shown to be untrue or not falsifiable, is not accurate. Many have not. Here is one - God exists. Has that been shown to be false? Yes, it is not falsifiable, but so is the statement, God does not exists. Are you saying that if something is not falsifiable that it does not exist?
When you say ALL claims have been shown to be false, that is your opinion. When you say the evidence is heavily in your favor, that is also opinion. All your evidence is circumstantial. Your claimed evidence of absence is very subjective and relies on your categorical claim that all have been shown to be false.
@Jo: Political and Marriage analogies are complete failures. You are attempting to compare real things with actual definitions to a fantasy. God and Gods are both fantasies. DEFINE YOUR GOD. And try again.
RE: A bear in a cave is similar to God in a cave? YEP! Exactly the same. Both will leave behind evidence for their existence. If they do not, there is absolutely no reason what so ever to believe they were ever in the cave. NONE. The analogy is "SPOT ON." Unlike the garbage you posted. If there is no evidence for your god, there is no reason to assert existence. It's just that frigging simple.
RE: "ALL claims by theists about God have been shown to be untrue or not falsifiable, is not accurate." WELL WTF..... Why are you posting all this bullshit then. Just give us your accurate God claim and then go and collect your Nobel Prize. If there was a God claim that was shown to be true, don't you think someone would have heard about it by now? Don't you think the site would be inundated with the claims? Don't you think the atheists would simply admit that they have been wrong? Stop posting all the bullshit and just give us the one and only substantiated God claim that you seem to know about but is apparently a mystery to everyone else in the world.
RE; God Exists: Has that been shown to be false? YES. That is what we are talking about. Please define your god. If you can not define your god, there is no reason to assume existence. If you define it beyond human comprehension, there is no way you could know about it so how in the hell do you claim existence? That which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence. Once again you are not proportioning belief to the actual evidence. "God Exists" is not even a coherent idea. I have already conceded that some gods exist. The Sun god, Water Gods, Crocodile God, The Mountain God of Moses, and more. You have engaged your ignorant black and white, all or nothing thinking once again. You define your version of god and I will be happy to demonstrate to you why it either does not exist or does not matter.
RE: God Exists is not falsifiable. WRONG AGAIN. Of course the statement "God Exists" is falsifiable. All you have to do is show me your god. It is completely falsifiable. You are confusing the idea that most gods are defined as non-falsifiable. "Gods beyond time and space bullshit." If it was beyond time and space how in the fuck would you know anything about it? How do you know what is beyond time and space. This is just an inane assertion and unless you can demonstrate that you have an ability to understand what is beyond our time and space you are just making a moronic statement.
RE: "When you say ALL claims have been shown to be false, that is your opinion" Then define your god and make one true statement about him. One of us is certainly operating from "opinions," it's not me. All I am doing is requesting that you validate your opinions with facts and evidence. I have clearly outlined my position with the cave analogy and the FACT, that a lack of evidence can be used as evidence of absence. This position is scientifically sound. (AGAIN: were it not, the same scientists would continue doing the same experiments over and over and over while expecting different results.) Evidence is clearly in the favor of non-existence. There is nothing at all circumstantial in the fact that you can not and have not provided evidence for your claims. There is nothing subjective about an absence of evidence.
RE: "all have been shown to be false." "Or defined outside of existence. Useless." If you think you have something that is not.... lets hear it.
YOUR VERSION OF GOD IS NOT EVIDENCED BY KNOCKING DOWN MY POSITION. YOUR VERSION OF GOD IS EVIDENCED BY *PRODUCING EVIDENCE.* IF YOU VERSION OF GOD IS REAL, STOP FUCKING ABOUT AND JUST PRESENT IT. WHY IN THE FUCK ARE YOU ENGAGED IN ALL THIS NONSENSE. PRODUCE YOUR GOD OR SIMPLY ADMIT THAT YOU HAVE NO IDEA AT ALL AS TO WHAT THE FK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
@ Cognostic
You said "A bear in a cave is similar to God in a cave? YEP! Exactly the same. Both will leave behind evidence for their existence."
What evidence would God leave behind?
You make the claim "ALL claims by theists about God have been shown to be untrue or not falsifiable." I ask for evidence and your reply is that I must define my God. I must substantiate my God is the evidence that your claim is correct? I thought the one making the claim had to provide convincing evidence. You are making a claim, saying it is true because I cannot supply evidence to the contrary. Isn't that what theist are accused of doing? Saying God exists, now prove me wrong.
You make the claim that "Of course the statement "God Exists" is falsifiable." How do you falsify it, but requiring me to "show me your god." You evidence your first claim (God is falsifiable) by doubling down with another claim (God can be produced in the way you require). Can you describe how God could be produced in the way you require?
You ended by saying "YOUR VERSION OF GOD IS NOT EVIDENCED BY KNOCKING DOWN MY POSITION. YOUR VERSION OF GOD IS EVIDENCED BY *PRODUCING EVIDENCE.* IF YOU VERSION OF GOD IS REAL, STOP FUCKING ABOUT AND JUST PRESENT IT. WHY IN THE FUCK ARE YOU ENGAGED IN ALL THIS NONSENSE. PRODUCE YOUR GOD OR SIMPLY ADMIT THAT YOU HAVE NO IDEA AT ALL AS TO WHAT THE FK YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT."
Wow, are you shifting the burden of proof? You make many overarching claims and then it is my responsibility to provide evidence against your claims. Based on that reasoning when a theist says God exists, that claim is true until someone provides evidence, to the satisfaction of the theist, that there is no God. What evidence could I provide that you would accept? I have the sneaky suspicion that nothing I could provide would be satisfactory to you. Unless God is a large furry animal. But then he would not be God. But not surprisingly, you would get the answer you desire (there is no God).
You are attempting to get the answer you want, by making the rules so only that answer is possible.
@JO:
RE: I must substantiate my God is the evidence that your claim is correct?
YES. If you can not substantiate your claim, then my claim is correct. "There is no evidence for the existence of god or gods. Absence of evidence is in fact evidence of absence." This is called "The Burden of Proof." I have given you the evidence for my claim. "An absence of evidence for a 6000 year period of history." Can you provide any evidence at all for your claim? But before you do that you must define what God your are talking about. 1. Define your God. 2. Give evidence for its existence. If you can succeed in doing either of these you will convert half the atheists on this site.
RE: "God can be produced in the way you require." Produce him any way you like. You do understand the word "To Produce" right? Produce: (I do not require you to manufacture your god, though that is basically what you are doing. Instead I am referring to the definition "cause (a particular result or situation) to happen or come into existence." Again, if you are talking about a god that is outside of existence, there would be no possible way to know anything about it and so it is the same thing as not existing. So what have you got? Still waiting, while you engage in avoidance tactics. Produce your god. What's the problem?
RE: Wow, are you shifting the burden of proof? No one has shifted a damn thing. You have always had the burden of proof. Things are believed to the level of evidence provided. When there is no evidence there is no reason to believe the claim. (Null-hypothesis.) Your evidence falls short of the claim and there is no reason to assert the claim is true.
RE: You make many overarching claims and then it is my responsibility to provide evidence against your claims.
NO: I have told you to STOP trying to provide evidence against my claims and simply produce your god. Attempts at tearing down my claims get you nowhere. Either you have a valid argument for your position, Some God Exists (Which you have not yet defined.) or you do not. STILL WAITING..........
RE: "Based on that reasoning when a theist says God exists, that claim is true until someone provides evidence, to the satisfaction of the theist, that there is no God."
English obviously is not your first language. "You have asserted God exists and you assert your claim is true and you are looking for someone to prove you wrong." This is exactly what you are doing. You made the assertion and you have the burden of proof. My assertion is simply a lack of evidence is in fact evidence of absence. A valid and reliable scientific principle. If you think there is evidence for your god, please share. How hard is that?
RE: "What evidence could I provide that you would accept?"
I have no idea? What evidence have you got? So far we have 10,000 years of millions of failed Gods. 1,000s of failed Christian and Islamic apologetics. (Did you know the Kalam Cosmological Argument was an argument for the Muslim God Allah (Piece of Bullshit Upon Him) before WLC ever got hold of it and used it for the Christian God. The prime mover argument can be used for anything, even natural causes. Anyway, getting back on track.... Please share your evidence. We would all love to hear it.
RE: I have the sneaky suspicion that nothing I could provide would be satisfactory to you.
"Then why is it satisfactory to you?"
RE: Unless God is a large furry animal. But then he would not be God.
You are wrong again. Introducing the Tiger God of Hsinkang, the only Tiger that is allowed to sit on your table. (Chinese Traditional Religion / Taiwan.) Sun Wukong (孫悟空，齊天大聖； "The Monkey King" or "Great Sage Equaling Heaven") is another large furry animal god. Hu Ye (虎爺 "Lord Tiger"), a guardian spirit, often found at the bottom of Taoist temple shrines. Can you prove any of these gods are not gods and then apply the same standards to your own mythical version of God? (We are after all still waiting for you to define your version of god.) And many many many gods have been defined as large furry animals.
RE: But not surprisingly, you would get the answer you desire (there is no God). NO! You are engaged in an equivocation fallacy by asserting no reason to believe in a god is the same thing as no god exists. At no point has it been asserted "There is no God." If it was said, it is in error. What I have stated over and over and over is that 1. "THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE."
2. "BELIEF IS ALLOCATED TO THE DEGREE OF THE EVIDENCE PROVIDED." 3. THERE IS NO GOOD REASON TO BELIEVE IN GOD OR GODS." I know I also stated that nothing can be known to 100% perfection. I am not the one operating from the Black or Whit fallacious position, YOU ARE.
Please define your god. Without a working definition there is of course no reason to believe in your god. And since you blatantly refuse to provide any facts, evidence or definitions I am completely justified in asserting you have nothing. You are proving you have nothing with each post you make. It seems reasonable to conclude that the God you are NOT REFERRING TO does not actually exist.
RE: The answer I want? One of us has an agenda and the other is willing to look at facts and evidence and change their mind. Please provide the facts and evidence for your god so that I may either change my mind or point to the logical inconsistencies in your position. One of us is willing to change his mind based on the actual evidence provided, the other is simply trolling the site and playing avoidance games.
@Jo: Why not just stop the mental masturbation and give the evidence you have for your version of this god thing?
RE: Claiming there is a God is non-falsifiable, but so is claiming there is not. NO YOU ARE WRONG. Claiming there is no God is completely falsifiable. All you need do is produce your god to falsify the claim. Asserting God exists may or may not be falsifiable depending on the definition of that god. You have to define your god before anyone can do anything with your claim.
RE: Claiming no water contains any lead because all tests for the presence of lead have failed, does not prove there is no lead in any water.
Why do you not grasp the concept that BELIEF IS ALLOCATED TO THE DEGREE OF EVIDENCE PROVIDED. If I had 6000 years of experiments indicating that there was no lead in water as well as a million debunked claims of led in water, I would be 100% justified in asserting "WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF LEAD IN WATER, THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THERE IS LED IN WATER." You keep getting stuck with your black and white, all or nothing presupposition, either this or that. THERE IS NO GOOD EVIDENCE FOR THE SUPPOSITION THAT A GOD EXISTS. NO CLAIM NEEDS TO BE BELIEVED BASED ON A LACK OF SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR THAT CLAIM. There is no good reason to believe in god or gods.
RE: "At best it proves the claims were wrong." THAT IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG. 6000 YEARS OF WRONG CLAIMS. 10,000 YEARS OF DEBUNKED DEAD AND GONE GODS. So what in the hell have you got for evidence to change my mind.
Sorry I got a visitor....
NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THE FRIGGING PROCESS WAS. WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE FOR MAGIC. GODS.
YES I HAVE GIVEN A POSITIVE TEST, VALID SCIENTIFIC TEST, THAT CAN PROVE WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE FOR GOD OR GODS.
@ Cognostic
I am not trying to frustrate you or simply trolling the site and playing avoidance games. You told me to STOP the nonsense and trying to provide evidence against my claims and simply produce your god.
I didn't think that was how it worked. I thought the one making the claim had to provide evidence. The claim is considered false until sufficient evidence is provided. That which is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.
Here are some of opinions and claims you have made on this forum:
"There is no good evidence (Evidence that can stand against critical inquiry.) for the existence of god or Gods.
Most gods are themselves defined "out of existence.
No attempt at defining a god into existence has ever been successful.
When all concepts of this God idea have failed.
When nothing asserted can stand against critical inquiry.
I have the failure of prayer studies.
I have the utter and complete debunking of religious claims.
Any assertion made by the religious that can affect the world we live in is testable.
All shown to be false or non-falsifiable. Insane babbling, outrageous claims, complete bullshit, and con artists raping the general public over and over and over.
Evidence is clearly in the favor of non-existence
An absence of evidence for a 6000 year period of history."
You weave all of your claims and opinions together, and call it evidence. Then make the claim:
"Evidence of Absence is in fact all one needs to justify the assertion that "No God appears to exist anywhere.""
A long string of claims and opinions do not equal evidence. I don't see any evidence, just claims and opinions.
You then try to shift the burden of proof onto me by asserting:
"Just give us your accurate God claim and then go and collect your Nobel Prize.
Please define your god.
You define your version of god and I will be happy to demonstrate to you why it either does not exist or does not matter.
There is a difference between asserting there is a god and asserting that there is not a god. The claim that there is no god is a falsifiable claim. All the theist need do is produce their god to falsify the claim.
Why do I have to provide definitions and produce my God? I thought the one making the claims (you made above), has the responsibility to produce evidence? If your claims are true you should not need me to provide or produce anything. Just show me the evidence that supports your claims.
You said all claims have been shown to be false, so I gave you the 6,000 year old claim that God exists. You should have been able to provide the evidence to show that the claim is false. Instead you said ""God Exists" is not even a coherent idea." I give you a claim that has not been shown to be false and you deny it is a valid claim.
When I asked you what evidence could I provide that you would accept?"
You said "I have no idea? What evidence have you got?"
You want me to produce my God, provide definitions and evidence, but you have no idea what evidence you would accept. How can I provide what you want, if you don't know what it is?
If a theist makes a claim that God almost certainly exists, the atheists ask for evidence. When an atheist makes a claim that God almost certainly does not exist ( or some variation, not saying proof), shouldn't they also have to provide evidence. Aren't the rules the same for both?
Your claim about prayer studies that show it doesn't work, is obviously not true. You would expect to see some benefit because of the placebo effect, even if there is no God. The people praying really believe it works, so you should see a placebo effect. There is also the futility of trying to test if prayer works. Here is a study that shows that your claim is false. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2802370/
Don't you see the futility of trying to produce sufficient evidence to support the claim God does/does not exist?
@Jo: You obviously have no understanding what so ever of "burden of proof." A long string of claims does not equal evidence for what? Each and every claim is sufficient evidence of absence of claims for the existence of God. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. There is sufficient evidence of absence to make the assertion we have no evidence for god. From their is is a small logical step to make the assertion God does not exist. Do you have any evidence at all for the existence of your god? I do not need to prove your god does not exist. I only need to point to the FACT that you have no good evidence. (The person making the positive claim has the burden of evidence.)
A: ""There is no good evidence (Evidence that can stand against critical inquiry.) for the existence of god or Gods." IMAGINE A LIST OF ALL KNOWN APOLOGETICS.
B: Most gods are themselves defined "out of existence. ALL GODS BEYOND TIME AND SPACE. ALL VERSIONS OF DEISM.
C: No attempt at defining a god into existence has ever been successful. SEE 'A.'
D: When nothing asserted can stand against critical inquiry. SEE 'A'
E: I have the failure of prayer studies. (https://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html) Tempelton.
"People dying of cancer who know they are being prayed for do significantly worse. "
Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: CONCLUSIONS:
Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications. CERTAINLY EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE.
F: I have the utter and complete debunking of religious claims. (SEE 'A.')
G: Any assertion made by the religious that can affect the world we live in is testable. (prayer, miracles, predictions, prophecy, ) It has all been tested and it has all shown nothing... More evidence of absence.
No evidence of God or gods.
H. "Just give us your accurate God claim and then go and collect your Nobel Prize.
Please define your god. IF ANYONE COULD MAKE EVEN ONE ACCURATE GOD CLAIM, I BELIEVE THEY WOULD WIN THE NOBEL PRIZE FOR DISCOVERING GOD. I BELIEVE THAT THIS CLAIM WOULD BE TOUTED BY THE RELIGIONS INCESSANTLY. EVERY SINGLE POST MAKE BY A THEIST WOULD BE A FORM OF THIS ACCURATE GOD CLAIM. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ACCURATE GOD CLAIM TO DATE. IF YOU THINK THERE IS, PLEASE PROVIDE IT. IT IS NOT MY JOB TO PROVE YOUR GOD FOR YOU. I KNOW OF NO SUCH CLAIM. IF YOU HAVE ONE I WILL CONVERT TODAY.
I. "Evidence of Absence is in fact all one needs to justify the assertion that "No God appears to exist anywhere. This is a completely falsifiable claim. All you need do is produce your god or at least a definition that is logically consistent and necessary.
2. The claim is, "Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence" What are you not paying attention to. The follow up claim is that "Belief" is allocated to the degree of evidence provided. We have evidence of absence and nothing to base belief on. It is not my job to come up with something that I can base belief on. That is not the way science or critical inquiry works. If you assert purple aliens are real, the default position is to not believe you until you produce some evidence. Without any evidence I am completely justified in not believing your claim. How are you justified in believing your claim is the real question.
3. How can I provide what you want, if you don't know what it is? EXACTLY: I don't know what it is. You say God and I haven't a frigging clue what in the hell you are talking about. If I offered you a Moilinsk would you take it? What would you do with it? Wouldn't you want to know something about it first? Well, how in the hell can I tell you anything about it if you don't know what it is... (REALLY STUPID QUESTION.) What do you think. Animal, Vegetable, Mineral, Shape, Size, Use, ......
4. If a theist makes a claim that God almost certainly exists, the atheists ask for evidence. When an atheist makes a claim that God almost certainly does not exist ( or some variation, not saying proof), shouldn't they also have to provide evidence. Aren't the rules the same for both?
AND WHAT ARE YOU NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO? "ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE *IS* EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE. This is a legitimate scientific way of coming to conclusions. If it were not, scientists would keep doing the same experiments over and over and over while expecting different results. Belief is allocated to the degree of evidence provided/. Without substantial evidence for God claims there is no reason at all to believe them.
FROM YOUR PRAYER STUDY -----
"By the end of 26 weeks, a primary endpoint had occurred in 25.6% of patients in the prayer group and in 29.3% of patients in the control group. The difference was not statistically significant..... Thus, this study showed that, as delivered in this study, intercessory prayer did not influence the 26-week outcome after discharge from a coronary care unit."
"Other recent randomized controlled trials have also reported negative results. For example, Krucoff et al.[35] reported no benefits with off-site prayer in patients (n = 748) undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions and Astin et al.[36] found that neither remote prayer delivered by professional healers nor remote prayer delivered by nurses with no training or experience in distance healing resulted in benefits to patients (n = 156) with acquired immunodeficiency syndrome-defining opportunistic infections."
"Benson et al.[37] described a triple-blind, randomized controlled study that examined whether remote intercessory prayer influenced recovery after coronary artery bypass graft surgery and whether the certainty of being prayed for was associated with better outcomes. The sample comprised 1,802 patients in six hospitals in the USA" "Prayer commenced one day before the surgery and continued for 14 days. Three mainstream religious sites prayed daily for patients assigned to receive prayer." "This study therefore showed that remote intercessory prayer did not improve outcomes after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. In fact, the knowledge of being prayed for was associated with a slightly but significantly higher rate of postsurgical complications."
THIS IS ALL FROM YOUR LINK - DID YOU READ THE LINK BEFORE POSTING IT? "THANKS FOR ALL THE SUPPORT." SO WHAT DO THEY CONCLUDE?????? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !
"In this context, we must keep in mind that religion is based on faith and not on proof. This implies that, if God exists, he is indifferent to humanity or has chosen to obscure his presence. Either way, he would be unlikely to cooperate in scientific studies that seek to test his existence."
ROFLMAO ----- ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha .....
"Where does this leave us? God may indeed exist and prayer may indeed heal; however, it appears that, for important theological and scientific reasons, randomized controlled studies cannot be applied to the study of the efficacy of prayer in healing. In fact, no form of scientific enquiry presently available can suitably address the subject. Therefore, the continuance of such research may result in the conducted studies finding place among other seemingly impeccable studies with seemingly absurd claims (Renckens et al.[42] 2002). Whereas we have attempted to be scientifically and politically correct in our critique, other authors, such as Dawkins,[43] have been humorous, nay even scathing, in their criticism."
I HAVE TEARS IN MY EYES!!!! YOU POSTED THIS CRAP SUPPORTING YOUR POSITION FOR EVIDENCE. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!!
Pages