|
Post by goz on Apr 8, 2019 23:12:51 GMT
"Prior to 1676 there was no evidence of bacteria and yet they existed all the while." Well that's rather the point, up until 1676 there was no actual good reason to believe in bacteria since there was no actual evidence of it. That's all the atheism (or at least agnostic atheism) means. Very few atheists would actually say "God doesn't exist. Even Richard Dawkins wouldn't say that, what he and others like him would say is there is currently no good reasons for believing in one. Could there one day be evidence discovered for a "God"? I can't definitely say no, but until that day there's currently no actual evidence for one and by proxy a good reason for believing in one. There is plenty of evidence for God though. You just lack the tiny snippet of faith required to see it. 'There is plenty of evidence for God though. You just lack the tiny snippet of delusion and suspension of logic required to see it. '
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Apr 8, 2019 23:31:42 GMT
There is plenty of evidence for God though. You just lack the tiny snippet of faith required to see it. There really isn't. The "evidence" is either terrible arguments or personal experience claims. - Teleological argument - Kalam cosmological argument - Objective morality and justice - Fine-tuning argument. - Life/consciousness - Near death experiences. - Life, ministry and death and resurrection of Christ. - Miracle reports - Personal experiences. - Biblical prophesy. - Basic Logic - Common sense These are all sound evidence for the existence of God.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Apr 8, 2019 23:34:16 GMT
There really isn't. The "evidence" is either terrible arguments or personal experience claims. - Teleological argument - Kalam cosmological argument - Objective morality and justice - Fine-tuning argument. - Life/consciousness - Near death experiences. - Life, ministry and death and resurrection of Christ. - Miracle reports - Personal experiences. - Biblical prophesy. - Basic Logic - Common sense These are all sound evidence for the existence of God. Yeah, like I said terrible arguments and personal experience claims aren't really "evidence" or at least good evidence. I'm amazed there are even people still shelling out the "fine tuning" argument, that is easily one of the worst ones I've heard.
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 9, 2019 10:46:49 GMT
I don't believe in God for the same reason I don't believe in ghosts. Lack of evidence. Prior to 1676 there was no evidence of bacteria and yet they existed all the while. Just because you haven’t personally discovered the evidence for God yet, there are various reasons why that is, does not mean he’s not out there. The supposed lack of evidence is neither proof, nor evidence that God doesn’t exist. I never said that the lack of evidence was proof or evidence that God doesn't exist. All I said was that, I don't believe in God due to a lack of evidence. Hitchen's razor: Assertions without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. We might living in simulated reality but I don't think there is evidence for me to believe that we do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2019 2:16:18 GMT
Because I've never seen any convincing evidence that a god or gods exists. The question is incoherent. Atheism is not an assertion of fact, and thus it cannot be true or false. Atheism is a response to a claim made by others, not a claim of its own. I have no evidence that god doesn't exist, which is why I do not claim that god doesn't exist. As an atheist, my position is that neither you nor anybody else has ever provided me with convincing evidence that god does exist. And until you or somebody else does that, then I'm not going to believe god exists. It's exactly the same as my position with respect to Bigfoot, or Unicorns, or Elves. I don't claim that these things do not exist; they might. But my position is that I will believe in them when I am given evidence of their existence, and not until then. Oh, and as regards "living my life as if god did not exist"... that's also fairly meaningless. Apart from some academic interest, the way I would live my life if god did not exist is absolutely identical to the way I would live my life if god did exist. His existence is irrelevant to me as a practical matter. So I essentially do both.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Apr 10, 2019 6:04:12 GMT
There really isn't. The "evidence" is either terrible arguments or personal experience claims. - Teleological argument - Kalam cosmological argument - Objective morality and justice - Fine-tuning argument. - Life/consciousness - Near death experiences. - Life, ministry and death and resurrection of Christ. - Miracle reports - Personal experiences. - Biblical prophesy. - Basic Logic - Common sense These are all sound evidence for the existence of God. As others already said: These are either bad evidence for the existence of deities, or no evidence at all.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 10, 2019 13:00:10 GMT
No evidence for God. And what proof or evidence do you have that... God doesn’t exist? You don't have evidence for things not existing. When things don't exist, there's an absence of evidence for their existence, which is precisely what we see with God.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Apr 10, 2019 13:25:45 GMT
No evidence for God. And what proof or evidence do you have that... God doesn’t exist? You don't have evidence for things not existing. When things don't exist, there's an absence of evidence for their existence, which is precisely what we see with God. Even though absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is evidence for God. You just reject the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Apr 10, 2019 13:45:32 GMT
Even though absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is evidence for God. You just reject the evidence. The evidence for God you listed is not stronger than the evidence for Nessie, Bigfoot, mermaids, unicorns or dragons. If we apply Occam's razor (or the razor of other smart people), then absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Apr 10, 2019 13:54:00 GMT
Even though absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is evidence for God. You just reject the evidence. The evidence for God you listed is not stronger than the evidence for Nessie, Bigfoot, mermaids, unicorns or dragons. If we apply Occam's razor (or the razor of other smart people), then absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Your statement equates to nothing more than hand waving merely to avoid critically examining the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 10, 2019 21:08:19 GMT
I was going to give Cody this example, however he ignores me because he can't cope with my logic and calm reason. Say I have an apple and you have an apple in our hands. I give you my apple. I don't have an apple anymore so what do I have? I have nothing...an absence of apple...no apple at all. To not have an apple, I don't necessarily need to have no concept of what an apple constitutes. I may have a memory of an apple however NOW I don't have one and THERE IS NOTHING in its place (unless you play silly buggers and say it is air or some other inconsequential semantic stupidity) Atheism is merely am absence of apple/belief in God. What was before you had the apple? Was it an apple seed that got planted perhaps, to make you aware of the apple? Say for arguments sake, God is Apple. You have Apple, you are aware of Apple, but decide you don't like Apple so you give it away. Apple is still an aspect in your life once you become aware of Apple.The memory of Apple still lingers, because your refuting of Apple began with Apple. To deny Apple, is to recall Apple. Apple therefore just is and is always there whether you like it or not. It begins and ends with Apple and there was no beginning and no end. What absolute bollocks. What was there before the apple? No apple/an absence of apple. I repeat
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 11, 2019 0:56:52 GMT
What absolute bollocks. What was there before the apple? No apple/an absence of apple. I repeat There you go, throwing out your denial pelting stones again. You CANNOT refute God, without having the notion of God to begin with. You still have the concept\seed planted. Idiot! Once more for the dummies! As an atheists I have an absence of god or gods and I know what the concept of god means. I just don't subscribe to it. I have an absence of god/s. None, nil zero zip nada.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 11, 2019 1:06:32 GMT
The evidence for God you listed is not stronger than the evidence for Nessie, Bigfoot, mermaids, unicorns or dragons. If we apply Occam's razor (or the razor of other smart people), then absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Your statement equates to nothing more than hand waving merely to avoid critically examining the evidence. Upon critically examining the 'evidence' you have supplied in your list there is nothing which proves the proof of your assertion that God exists. It is at best circumstantial, and at worst fabrication, mythology and wishful thinking without factual foundation. "Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertionAt the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 11, 2019 1:42:07 GMT
No evidence for God. You don't have evidence for things not existing. When things don't exist, there's an absence of evidence for their existence, which is precisely what we see with God. Even though absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Yes it is, and mathematically provably so: www.lesswrong.com/posts/mnS2WYLCGJP2kQkRn/absence-of-evidence-is-evidence-of-absenceTo state it simply in a way relative to this discussion: the probability of no evidence given God doesn't exist is 100%, while the probability of no evidence given God did exist is <100%. So whatever your prior probability of God's existence would be, the absence of evidence for him existing would most certainly lower the probability of his existence. And that's how all evidence (or lack thereof) works. There is evidence for God. You just reject the evidence. I reject the "evidence" because it's not evidence. Most people have no idea what evidence even is and how it works, epistemically speaking. Like you earlier mentioned several famous arguments for God. Arguments aren't evidence. They're reasoning from evidence. They're all bad arguments too that rely on bad reasoning, bad assumptions, or some combination. Would you like me to quickly go through them? I mean, I've actually read/studied these arguments before. I've read apologists and theologians, and I've heard them in debates and in lectures, so I'm quite familiar with this stuff. Also, I might add that I'm the type of atheist that would very much like to believe in God. It would be very nice to think that there's a transcendentally powerful being that loves me and wants the best for me and will grant me eternal life after I die. All that's very nice, and believing it would make my relationship with my family much better. I'm not an atheist because I want to be, I'm an atheist because I'm a rationalist first and foremost, and you can't get to believe in God from evidence and reason alone--and I should know or I would've found the way there by now.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Apr 11, 2019 2:05:27 GMT
There really isn't. The "evidence" is either terrible arguments or personal experience claims. - Teleological argument - Kalam cosmological argument - Objective morality and justice - Fine-tuning argument. - Life/consciousness - Near death experiences. - Life, ministry and death and resurrection of Christ. - Miracle reports - Personal experiences. - Biblical prophesy. - Basic Logic - Common sense These are all sound evidence for the existence of God. - Teleological argument Watchmaker argument, 100% debunked
- Kalam cosmological argument First cause argument, 100% debnked
- Objective morality and justice
Of which there is no evidence
- Fine-tuning argument.
Water fits perfectly in the puddle argument, 100% debunked (actually this is the watch maker argument again really)
- Life/consciousness
Not an argument at all, and were to to make an argument using this I suspect it would be the watchmaker arguement, so 100% debunked
- Near death experiences.
No credible evidence for this exists
- Life, ministry and death and resurrection of Christ.
No credible evidence suggests that Christ was anything other than a human
- Miracle reports
No credible evidence for these
- Personal experiences.
Not evidence
- Biblical prophesy.
Circular reasoning, God exists because it says so in the bible which is true because god exists
- Basic Logic
None demonstrated here, but have a go
- Common sense
see above.
so no.
and I believe in God.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 11, 2019 2:14:17 GMT
- Teleological argument - Kalam cosmological argument - Objective morality and justice - Fine-tuning argument. - Life/consciousness - Near death experiences. - Life, ministry and death and resurrection of Christ. - Miracle reports - Personal experiences. - Biblical prophesy. - Basic Logic - Common sense These are all sound evidence for the existence of God. - Teleological argument Watchmaker argument, 100% debunked
- Kalam cosmological argument First cause argument, 100% debnked
- Objective morality and justice
Of which there is no evidence
- Fine-tuning argument.
Water fits perfectly in the puddle argument, 100% debunked (actually this is the watch maker argument again really)
- Life/consciousness
Not an argument at all, and were to to make an argument using this I suspect it would be the watchmaker arguement, so 100% debunked
- Near death experiences.
No credible evidence for this exists
- Life, ministry and death and resurrection of Christ.
No credible evidence suggests that Christ was anything other than a human
- Miracle reports
No credible evidence for these
- Personal experiences.
Not evidence
- Biblical prophesy.
Circular reasoning, God exists because it says so in the bible which is true because god exists
- Basic Logic
None demonstrated here, but have a go
- Common sense
see above.
so no.
and I believe in God.
You sound very like my cousin, who I went walking with on the Camino de Santiago de Compostella in Spain. When I asked her if she believed in God, she said 'Yes'. When I asked her why, she just said 'I just do'. I can accept that!
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Apr 11, 2019 2:18:23 GMT
- Teleological argument Watchmaker argument, 100% debunked
- Kalam cosmological argument First cause argument, 100% debnked
- Objective morality and justice
Of which there is no evidence
- Fine-tuning argument.
Water fits perfectly in the puddle argument, 100% debunked (actually this is the watch maker argument again really)
- Life/consciousness
Not an argument at all, and were to to make an argument using this I suspect it would be the watchmaker arguement, so 100% debunked
- Near death experiences.
No credible evidence for this exists
- Life, ministry and death and resurrection of Christ.
No credible evidence suggests that Christ was anything other than a human
- Miracle reports
No credible evidence for these
- Personal experiences.
Not evidence
- Biblical prophesy.
Circular reasoning, God exists because it says so in the bible which is true because god exists
- Basic Logic
None demonstrated here, but have a go
- Common sense
see above.
so no.
and I believe in God.
You sound very like my cousin, who I went walking with on the Camino de Santiago de Compostella in Spain. When I asked her if she believed in God, she said 'Yes'. When I asked her why, she just said 'I just do'. I can accept that! Metaphysically speaking I chose to interpret the universe as being created. It simply makes the most sense and fits in with my metaphysical understanding, I also talk to and ask favours from a personal God , that I either choose not to or cannot explain
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 11, 2019 2:24:15 GMT
You sound very like my cousin, who I went walking with on the Camino de Santiago de Compostella in Spain. When I asked her if she believed in God, she said 'Yes'. When I asked her why, she just said 'I just do'. I can accept that! Metaphysically speaking I chose to interpret the universe as being created. It simply makes the most sense and fits in with my metaphysical understanding, I also talk to and ask favours from a personal God , that I either choose not to or cannot explain
I hadn't picked you for a creationist, or do you mean that your God created the mechanism of evolution, Big Bang etc?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Apr 11, 2019 2:30:16 GMT
Metaphysically speaking I chose to interpret the universe as being created. It simply makes the most sense and fits in with my metaphysical understanding, I also talk to and ask favours from a personal God , that I either choose not to or cannot explain
I hadn't picked you for a creationist, or do you mean that your God created the mechanism of evolution, Big Bang etc? I mean the source is intentional, that is to say it did not come about by accident, but by intention, I do not deny any proven science. The universe is billions of years old and evolution is a proven fact.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 11, 2019 3:46:55 GMT
Once more for the dummies! As an atheists I have an absence of god or gods and I know what the concept of god means. I just don't subscribe to it. I have an absence of god/s. None, nil zero zip nada. If you don't\didn't have a concept of what God is supposed to represent, how can you possibly refute it? It begins with the concept. Atheism is just a disbelief in what theists believe, but the the disbelief still starts with the seed of concept. Your ideal begins and then supposedly ends with the notion of God, but where is the end? Luckily I never said that. I have the concept of god. I have no belief. I have an absence of belief in the concept. This is not rocket surgery!
|
|