Let's cut to the chase. Do you have any evidence?

[no evidence no belief]

I feel like we've been beating around the bush for... 6000 years!

Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence?

If you believe there once was a talking donkey (Numbers 22) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe there once was a zombie invasion in Jerusalem (Mat 27) could you please provide evidence?

If you believe in the flying horse (Islam) could you please provide evidence?

Walking on water, virgin births, radioactive spiders who give you superpowers, turning water into wine, turning iron into gold, demons, goblins, ghosts, hobbits, elves, angels, unicorns and Santa.

Can you PLEASE provide evidence?

[Danmark]

Going on 100 pages, and NOBODY can provide solid evidence for their fairy tales.

Including the fairy tale that you are in a position to know whether there is a god or not.

Including the fairy tale that if there is a god, human reason would be qualified to analyze such a thing.

Including the fairy tale that posting snotty comments about religions on forums day after day to people who already mostly agree with you accomplishes anything at all.

Including the fairy tale that all this typing I'm doing is accomplishing anything either.

This reasoning is faulty in part because you use terminology equivocally. To borrow from Wikipedia, "A fairy tale is a type of short story that typically features folkloric fantasy characters, such as fairies, goblins, elves, trolls, dwarves, giants, mermaids, or gnomes, and usually magic or enchantments. Fairy tales may be distinguished from other folk narratives such as legends (which generally involve belief in the veracity of the events described) and explicitly moral tales, including beast fables."

A 'fairy tale' has elements similar to 'god stories' IF the fairy tale is told as if one really believes it. But by definition 'not believing in god' is not a fairy tale.

You also seem to be confusing false hope with fairy tale. You may have a false hope that your writing will accomplish anything positive, but that does not make it a 'fairy tale.' I realize this is rather obvious. I only bother to write it because now I understand how you came to a similar error in your post on 'Belief in Pixies.'

[no evidence no belief]

Going on 100 pages, and NOBODY can provide solid evidence for their fairy tales.

Including the fairy tale that you are in a position to know whether there is a god or not.

Well, here we have a wonderful opportunity for you to show everybody on this forum that I'm a complete idiot.

Please, do show everybody where it is that I EVER said "I know whether there is a god or not".

My entire correspondence over the years on this forum can be easily accessed. I understand that sieving through it can be tedious so I'll make it worth your while. Find a spot where I said "I know whether there is a god or not", and I will send you $10,000 by paypal.

I am just saying that nobody has presented good evidence for God, not that I know that God doesn't exist.

Including the fairy tale that if there is a god, human reason would be qualified to analyze such a thing.

That's such a cop out. If you posit the hypothetical existence of an entity that by definition is impossible to analyze, then OF COURSE analyzing it is pointless.

You might as well define God as "an entity for which there is no evidence", and then use the fact that there is no evidence for it as an argument for his existence.

Of course, I could use the exact same argument to define into existence the invisible dragon that lives in my basement.

You are defining God as an unfalsifiable proposition, thus making God completely and utterly meaningless. I'm totally ok with you doing that, as long as you don't then turn around and try to tell me that your worldview is somehow superior to mine, because you got it from your unfalsifiable and utterly meaningless invisible friend.

Including the fairy tale that posting snotty comments about religions on forums day after day to people who already mostly agree with you accomplishes anything at all.

It's an irrefutable fact ("fact", you know, that uncomfortable empirical measurable thing that normal people base their opinions on) that the people on this forum do NOT mostly agree with me. The creator of this site is a theist, half of the administrators are theists, and approximately half the users are theists ranging from moderates to literalists. Even on this thread specifically, you are looking at 100 pages of heated debate, so to claim that people mostly agree with me is, well, the exact opposite of the truth.

Including the fairy tale that all this typing I'm doing is accomplishing anything either.

Well, I agree with you there. There is indeed very little point to your post, except maybe that seeing your opinions systematically dismantled and their meaninglessness laid bare for all to see, will maybe cause you to be a little bit embarrassed, and hopefully induce in you the desire to apply critical thinking to your opinions before verbalizing them.

[instantc]

Nothing? No evidence? Why are you still here?

I made up this argument for you, already discussed it a bit in the philosophy section:

1. If the being, without which anything at all cannot exist, doesn't exist, then anything at all doesn't exist.

2. Anything at all does exist

3. The being, without which anything at all couldn't exist, does exist.


The argument is valid, (2) is obvious, and also the conditional in (1) seems sound to me. Which premises do you disagree with and why? Or do you conclude that a being without which anything couldn't exist (lets call is God) exists?

[Philbert]

Please, do show everybody where it is that I EVER said "I know whether there is a god or not".

Ok, so you have no opinion on the topic then? If you do have an opinion, then you think you have the ability to know whether there is a god or not, or you would have no opinion.

I am just saying that nobody has presented good evidence for God, not that I know that God doesn't exist.

I agree nobody has presented good evidence of God, nor good evidence of human reason's ability to analyze a question of this scale. So there's no reason for us to believe in either of those things.

. If you posit the hypothetical existence of an entity that by definition is impossible to analyze, then OF COURSE analyzing it is pointless.

Please explain why an entity capable of creating billions of galaxies, should such an entity exist, could be analyzed by humans.

Wouldn't logic dictate that such an entity would be so far beyond us in ability that it would be like a grasshopper trying to understand the work of Einstein?

You believe in human reason's ability to address this subject as a matter of faith, just as the theists believe via faith.

It's an irrefutable fact ("fact", you know, that uncomfortable empirical measurable thing that normal people base their opinions on) that the people on this forum do NOT mostly agree with me.

The majority of posts are from those attempting to debunk Christianity.

[no evidence no belief]

Nothing? No evidence? Why are you still here?

I made up this argument for you, already discussed it a bit in the philosophy section:

1. If the being, without which anything at all cannot exist, doesn't exist, then anything at all doesn't exist.

2. Anything at all does exist

3. The being, without which anything at all couldn't exist, does exist.


The argument is valid, (2) is obvious, and also the conditional in (1) seems sound to me. Which premises do you disagree with and why? Or do you conclude that a being without which anything couldn't exist (lets call is God) exists?

Your argument is about exactly as valid as this one:

1. If the being, without which presents underneath Christmas trees cannot exist, doesn't exist, then presents underneath Christmas trees do not exist.

2. Presents underneath Christmas trees do exist

3. The being, without which presents underneath Christmas trees cannot exist, does exist.

The argument is valid. (2) is obvious, and also the conditional in (1) seems sound to me. Which premises do you disagree with and why? Or do you conclude that a being without which presents underneath a Christmas tree wouldn't exist (lets call it Santa) exists?


An entity without which presents underneath a Christmas tree wouldn't exist, DOES exist. This entity is called THE PARENTS OF EACH CHILD RECEIVING GIFTS.

There is absolutely no reason to gratuitously inject the SUPERNATURAL into it. The fact that some explanation must exist for the existence of presents under the Christmas tree, doesn't mean that this explanation is therefore Santa.

Similarly, some explanation must exist for the existence of everything, but it doesn't mean that this explanation is therefore God.


In this thread I am not asking for an argument for whether the observable universe is or isn't caused by something external to it. I am asking for evidence of some measurable manifestation of the supernatural. The fact that stuff exists is no more evidence for God than the fact that presents under the Christmas tree exist is evidence for Santa.

[Danmark]

Nothing? No evidence? Why are you still here?

I made up this argument for you, already discussed it a bit in the philosophy section:

1. If the being, without which anything at all cannot exist, doesn't exist, then anything at all doesn't exist.

2. Anything at all does exist

3. The being, without which anything at all couldn't exist, does exist.


The argument is valid, (2) is obvious, and also the conditional in (1) seems sound to me. Which premises do you disagree with and why? Or do you conclude that a being without which anything couldn't exist (lets call is God) exists?

This argument is not constructed properly.
"1. If the being, without which anything at all cannot exist, doesn't exist, then anything at all doesn't exist" is false because even though it is conditional, it contains the premise of a creative being necessary to existence. The argument fails because it is poorly constructed, thus obscuring its circular nature.

This becomes clear when it is stated properly:

1. There is a being without which nothing can exist.
2. Things exist.
3. Therefore there is a being without which nothing can exist.

When your argument is thus stated cleanly, it becomes obvious it is circular.

[Danmark]

Please, do show everybody where it is that I EVER said "I know whether there is a god or not".

Ok, so you have no opinion on the topic then? If you do have an opinion, then you think you have the ability to know whether there is a god or not, or you would have no opinion.

You are engaging in the fallacy of equivocation. One can have an opinion that God does not exist without affirming absolutely that he "knows" there is no god.

The topic is "evidence". The key question in Post #1 was:
"Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence? "

Perhaps there is an element, "Unobtainium." In my opinion there is no such element, because I am unaware of any evidence for Unobtainium. Have I absolutely ruled out any possible, however remote, chance that Unobtainium is out there somewhere, or that in some future it might exist? No, yet I have an opinion: Unobtainium is unobtainable.

[Philbert]

You are engaging in the fallacy of equivocation. One can have an opinion that God does not exist without affirming absolutely that he "knows" there is no god.

Yes, this is called atheist dogmatist dodging and weaving. First the forum atheist types about 7 million snotty posts about how stooopid theists are, and then when cornered retreats in to all kinds of equivocations. This is a very tired and worn out technique, and not worthy of your intelligence.

"Can you please either provide some evidence for your supernatural beliefs, or admit that you have no evidence? "

Can you please either provide some evidence of human ability to have any idea whether there is something as big as a god or not, or admit you have no evidence?

The whole problem in all these endlessly repeated discussions is that the atheist ideologues among us refuse to apply their own system to their own beliefs.

If you don't believe in your system, why should anybody else?

[no evidence no belief]

Please, do show everybody where it is that I EVER said "I know whether there is a god or not".

Ok, so you have no opinion on the topic then? If you do have an opinion, then you think you have the ability to know whether there is a god or not, or you would have no opinion.

Wrong. Having an opinion does NOT mean that I claim to have knowledge.

My opinion is that the supernatural does not exist. I do NOT claim to know that the supernatural doesn't exist.

I am totally open to changing my mind about the existence of the supernatural, which is why I'm asking for evidence for it.

I am just saying that nobody has presented good evidence for God, not that I know that God doesn't exist.

I agree nobody has presented good evidence of God

Good.

nor good evidence of human reason's ability to analyze a question of this scale.

We definitely have not PROVED conclusively that we have the ability to analyze a question of this scale, but we definitely have provided some EVIDENCE that we do. 50 generations ago we thought the earth was flat and that it was the center of the universe. Today we have gathered empirical evidence that allowed us to determine the conditions of the universe 13.8 billion years ago. We built a machine the size of Switzerland that allows us to reverse engineer and recreate the conditions of the Big Bang. We have functional mathematical systems that allow us to make sound statements about multiple dimensions and multiversal realities.

Considering the trajectory and expansion of our understanding of reality, I wouldn't put it past us to eventually measure, analyze and possibly understand questions on the scale of the existence of extra-universal entities.

. If you posit the hypothetical existence of an entity that by definition is impossible to analyze, then OF COURSE analyzing it is pointless.

Please explain why an entity capable of creating billions of galaxies, should such an entity exist, could be analyzed by humans.

If you define God simply as an entity capable of creating galaxies, then we absolutely are able to analyze it! Galaxies are simply the product of the interaction between gravity and the outward energy vector of the explosion at the singularity 13.8 billion ago. It's an irrefutable fact that we are capable of analyzing galaxy formation.

Wouldn't logic dictate that such an entity would be so far beyond us in ability that it would be like a grasshopper trying to understand the work of Einstein?

No. Logic would not dictate that at all. Logic dictates that the only way to determine that an unknown entity is unknowable is by knowing something about it - that it's unknowable.

When you know absolutely nothing about something, one of the things you don't know if whether that thing is knowable.

For example, we know that the complete sequence of digits that form the number pi is unknowable. How do we know that it's unknowable? By knowing something about it. We know that it's an infinite sequence and that infinite sequences are unknowable.

We don't know anything about this unknown entity we can temporarily label God. One of the things we don't know is if it's knowable.

I'm sorry. I assume I probably lost you there.

You believe in human reason's ability to address this subject as a matter of faith, just as the theists believe via faith.

Nope. My opinion, subject to modification as per the arrival of new data, is based on empirical evidence. Empirical evidence shows an exponential expansion of our understanding of the universe and beyond, over the last few centuries. To extrapolate based on the current trajectory is not faith, it's an educated guess.

I do not KNOW who would win in a boxing match between Mike Tyson and and a 85 year old lady. But if I guess that Tyson would win, I am not exhibiting faith, I am exhibiting my ability to make educated guesses.

Faith is not belief in the absence of absolute conclusive evidence. Faith is belief in the absence of ANY good evidence.

My tentative opinion that extra-universal entities are analyzable by humans is based on the empirical evidence of our track record, therefore it's not faith.

I'm not saying I STRONGLY believe this. On the one hand we may never ever be able to analyze data beyond the universe, on the other we may be able to. Consider our trajectory: 2000 years ago we knew close to nothing about the universe, now we recreate the big bang in a lab. Maybe in another 2000 years we'll be travelling to parallel universes.

It's an irrefutable fact ("fact", you know, that uncomfortable empirical measurable thing that normal people base their opinions on) that the people on this forum do NOT mostly agree with me.

The majority of posts are from those attempting to debunk Christianity.

There irrefutably are theists on this forum, and I received hundreds of responses from theists to my posts.

If you look up the definition of "wrong" in the dictionary, I think something like this will show up: A person who claims there is a negligible amount of theists on a debate forum, when the actual number of theists posts can be measured in the tens of thousands.

You are wrong buddy. Stop writing.

[Philbert]

My opinion is that the supernatural does not exist. I do NOT claim to know that the supernatural doesn't exist.

Atheist semantic games, used to keep the flattering fantasy self identity alive as long as possible.