otseng wrote:
Divine Insight wrote:
And it would clearly be wrong too. So obviously the lack of evidence we currently have is meaningless in terms of jumping to any conclusions at this time.
It would be a farce to use that information as an argument that there are not likely to be any fish in the ocean. And in precisely the same way, it's a farce to use our current "lack of evidence" as an argument that there isn't likely to be any life elsewhere in the universe.
This is why I say that it's a "
dishonest" argument.
If this is true, then I can use your exact same argument to refute atheist claims about God. Atheists claim there is zero evidence for God. I can just then reply that it is a dishonest argument because they have not looked
everywhere for God.
No you can't use that same argument, but I knew that you would try. What atheists deny are the religious claims that can be shown to have no evidence to support them. Prayer has been shown to not work in any measurable way. Even highly dedicated religious believers have confessed to the fact that their religions and gods have not kept the promises made in the doctrines. Mother Teresa comes to mind as prime example, but there are many others, and I would even include myself as a living example of proof that there is no evidence for the biblical God because if the Bible were true I should have clearly seen evidence which I have not seen.
That's evidence that should have been easily observed but simply doesn't exist.
otseng wrote:
Not only have we not looked everywhere
in our universe for God, we have not looked everywhere
outside our universe for God. The "lack of evidence" for God doesn't in any way show that God does not exist.
The lack of evidence for the Biblical God does indeed show that the Biblical dogma at least is false. If there exists a "God" it's not describe by the Bible verbatim to be certain. We can know that with 100% confidence.
otseng wrote:
As a matter of fact, since we have absolutely no idea how big all of reality actually is, God is sure to exist somewhere out there, esp if it is outside our universe. So, likewise, any atheistic argument that there is no evidence for God is a "dishonest" argument.
Not if they are specifically referring to the God described verbatim by Hebrew mythology.
But yes, if they are trying to claim that no possible concept of "god" in general can exist, then I agree with you that they are over-stepping their bounds.
I don't deny the possibility of a "god" in the general abstract sense. In fact, as many people have pointed out many times on these forums, the very term "god" is meaningless until it has been defined in enough detail to actually state what it is supposed to be.
So basically the term "god" is a meaningless term unless you define it before you use it.
Put a capital "G" on it and claim that it's the God described
verbatim by the Hebrew mythological Biblical canon, and I can assure you with 100% confidence that it most certainly does not exist.
Refuse to accept the
verbatim Hebrew description of 'God' and then we're back to square one again because as soon as you do that then I have no clue what you even mean by 'God'.
Also if you reject the Hebrew God
verbatim, then as far as I'm concerned you're already in agreement with me. And if you demand that God is describe by Hebrew mythology
verbatim, then I feel that I've already proven that that picture of God cannot possible exist because it's a self-contradicting oxymoron. And the evidence for that is quite clear right in the Hebrew mythology itself, IMHO.
No need to even look outside of the Bible to know that the Hebrew mythology is clearly false. Searching the universe or beyond for the Hebrew
verbatim God would be an exercise in futility.