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?

[zeromeansnothing]

I have bumped into a recurring obstacle to simple debate. I asked a lovely person called Divine Insight about the literacy of Jesus and most of what I encountered was an insistence on the non divinity of Jesus.

I enquire about the possibility of life in the universe and I am given something to this effect.

re Danmark Post2689--Some here would say abiogenesis could never take place without a designer even if there were a trillion trillion planets hospitable to life], and dozens of other factors.

In this example Goat responds to my post in the following manner.

re Goat Post2702--We have evidence of chemistry, organic chemistry that is not life, yet can self replicate, We have an understanding on how protocells might have formed. While not out of the hypothesis state, there is knowledge that can be replicated and examined to show that the process CAN be entirely natural, without any kind of external manipulation except for the way chemicals interact in the environment.

Divinity, designers and external manipulation. Can you not express your own ideas without mentioning something that obviously annoys you. You are not getting this from me. I just enquired about your opinions. If I ask my friend for their opinion on something, for example, money, I would be aghast if they started to cite the ten commandments as an aside to their stated position. Try not to assume the motives or agenda of the questioner within your answer. This has occurred within many of the responses to Sir Hamilton on this thread and it leads to very partizan interchange of ideas. Here is possibly the worst example.

[Star]

I have bumped into a recurring obstacle to simple debate. I asked a lovely person called Divine Insight about the literacy of Jesus and most of what I encountered was an insistence on the non divinity of Jesus.

I enquire about the possibility of life in the universe and I am given something to this effect.

re Danmark Post2689--Some here would say abiogenesis could never take place without a designer even if there were a trillion trillion planets hospitable to life], and dozens of other factors.

In this example Goat responds to my post in the following manner.

re Goat Post2702--We have evidence of chemistry, organic chemistry that is not life, yet can self replicate, We have an understanding on how protocells might have formed. While not out of the hypothesis state, there is knowledge that can be replicated and examined to show that the process CAN be entirely natural, without any kind of external manipulation except for the way chemicals interact in the environment.

Divinity, designers and external manipulation. Where are you getting this stuff from. You are not getting it from me. I just enquired about your opinions. If I ask my friend for their opinion on something, for example, money, I would be aghast if they started to cite the ten commandments as an aside to their stated position. Try not to assume the motives or agenda of the questioner within your answer.

You asked for their opinions, and they gave them to you. They're justifying their opinions in their arguments, which use evidence.

[zeromeansnothing]

This is another one line partisan observation that means nothing.
Here is the example of this type of interchange of ideas that I mentioned earlier.

re Sir Hamilton Post2590--I would say that the majority of Christian scholars would come to different conclusions than the majority of non-Christian scholars wouldn't they? This could apply to scientific studies as well. Humans can not be completely objective when they study data, their preconceived beliefs and views will "leak" into their conclusions.


This seems like a reasonable opinion but it is immediately responded to on a single line in the following manner.

re Danmark Post 2591--That is why so many of them think the Earth is flat and only 6000 years old.

[Sir Hamilton]

No. I posted a list of some scientists who from their studies of various fields have come to the conclusion the Earth is young if you wish to study these then do so or not I could care less. And as for involving myself in a debate...I was discussing these things with danmark and goat...you posted to me first if I remember correctly so whats up?? You got anything?

I've been debating on message boards for more than a decade. I don't know if you're trolling to get a rise out of us, or you're honestly just a newbie who doesn't know better, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and provide some personal advice...

You're on a message board and aren't entitled to privacy unless you use the Private Message (PM) feature. When you write on message boards, you have an audience. Many people read what you write. Assume everyone is watching.

You plagiarized Examiner, a trashy source of information, and that's why you were reluctant to tell us where you copy and pasted your list from. I wouldn't do that anymore. Post a link.

As the claimant, you bear the burden of citing your sources, or posting a link. You don't have to, of course, but don't expect credibility, especially when you copy and paste the work of others.

Merry Christmas.

Why do you consider cites that post science that supports a young earth 'trashy'? I have no more of a 'burden' than you do. My whole point is that you rely on what I consider to be 'trashy' science to support your beliefs.

Accredited universities and published peer-reviewed research are trashy? You must be kidding.

Examiner is trash because it lets almost anyone write for them, they're allowed to write almost anything they want, and they have almost no quality control. There's no editor to even check for spelling. A guy I knew there, one of their most popular writers, literally made up his own sources. They have some good writers, and I used to write for them, too. I saw stuff there that would make any real journalist cringe, and it did. It's not real journalism.

That's not to say everything there is garbage, but you have no way of knowing what is and what isn't, so it's best to avoid.

You have suggested that accredited universities and peer-reviewed research are trashy while non-accredited tabloid blog gossip site Examiner is not. Do you wish to recant?

are you aware that these young earth scientists have earned their degrees from accredited universities? You put alot of faith in these accredited universities and peer reviews...I admire your faith.

[Sir Hamilton]

No. I posted a list of some scientists who from their studies of various fields have come to the conclusion the Earth is young if you wish to study these then do so or not I could care less. And as for involving myself in a debate...I was discussing these things with danmark and goat...you posted to me first if I remember correctly so whats up?? You got anything?

I've been debating on message boards for more than a decade. I don't know if you're trolling to get a rise out of us, or you're honestly just a newbie who doesn't know better, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and provide some personal advice...

You're on a message board and aren't entitled to privacy unless you use the Private Message (PM) feature. When you write on message boards, you have an audience. Many people read what you write. Assume everyone is watching.

You plagiarized Examiner, a trashy source of information, and that's why you were reluctant to tell us where you copy and pasted your list from. I wouldn't do that anymore. Post a link.

As the claimant, you bear the burden of citing your sources, or posting a link. You don't have to, of course, but don't expect credibility, especially when you copy and paste the work of others.

Merry Christmas.

Why do you consider cites that post science that supports a young earth 'trashy'? I have no more of a 'burden' than you do. My whole point is that you rely on what I consider to be 'trashy' science to support your beliefs.

Accredited universities and published peer-reviewed research are trashy? You must be kidding.

Examiner is trash because it lets almost anyone write for them, they're allowed to write almost anything they want, and they have almost no quality control. There's no editor to even check for spelling. A guy I knew there, one of their most popular writers, literally made up his own sources. They have some good writers, and I used to write for them, too. I saw stuff there that would make any real journalist cringe, and it did. It's not real journalism.

That's not to say everything there is garbage, but you have no way of knowing what is and what isn't, so it's best to avoid.

You have suggested that accredited universities and peer-reviewed research are trashy while non-accredited tabloid blog gossip site Examiner is not. Do you wish to recant?

Are you not aware that young earth scientists have earned their degrees at many of these accredited universities? You seem to put a lot of faith in these accredited universities and this peer reviewed research...I admire your faith.

[Sir Hamilton]

I have bumped into a recurring obstacle to simple debate. I asked a lovely person called Divine Insight about the literacy of Jesus and most of what I encountered was an insistence on the non divinity of Jesus.

I enquire about the possibility of life in the universe and I am given something to this effect.

re Danmark Post2689--Some here would say abiogenesis could never take place without a designer even if there were a trillion trillion planets hospitable to life], and dozens of other factors.

In this example Goat responds to my post in the following manner.

re Goat Post2702--We have evidence of chemistry, organic chemistry that is not life, yet can self replicate, We have an understanding on how protocells might have formed. While not out of the hypothesis state, there is knowledge that can be replicated and examined to show that the process CAN be entirely natural, without any kind of external manipulation except for the way chemicals interact in the environment.

Divinity, designers and external manipulation. Where are you getting this stuff from. You are not getting it from me. I just enquired about your opinions. If I ask my friend for their opinion on something, for example, money, I would be aghast if they started to cite the ten commandments as an aside to their stated position. Try not to assume the motives or agenda of the questioner within your answer.

You asked for their opinions, and they gave them to you. They're justifying their opinions in their arguments, which use evidence.

Thats right opinion. And everybody got one. The so called evidence is nothing. These people have read this in book or heard some goofy professor say it so they just believe it. A Christian scientists could interpret the same data different from an atheistic scientist. Opinion.

[higgy1911]

I have been following this thread closely.

From all the arguments presented and only the arguments in this thread I have reached a handful of conclusions.

No one here has presented an argument which renders God an impossibility.
No one has presented a valid argument that God is logically necessary.
No one has offered evidence that God exists presently, though some arguments have attempted to prove He instigated the universe.

I would like to add a dimension to the discussion. If I suppose that God had to exist to create the universe, is there any evidence or reason to believe he still exists today? If the universe was caused by thessupernatural, is there any evidence that the supernatural has been in play during the course of human history?

[Goat]

are you aware that these young earth scientists have earned their degrees from accredited universities? You put alot of faith in these accredited universities and peer reviews...I admire your faith.

Why, why don't you mention some of those young earth creationist scientists, and let's check to see what their degree is in, and what university that they actually went to.

How many of those 'scientists' were applied engineers, computer scientists or mathematicians? And, what is the evidence they use to support their claims?

[olavisjo]

.

The core evidence I have for the God not existing is the lack of evidence for it.

That would be a classic example of an argument from ignorance.

Here is where we get to go round and round again on the burden of proof being on he who alleges and the impropriety of suggesting one prove a negative. To me it is a simple matter. The theist bears the burden because he is the one who alleges. It is also one of the reasons I prefer 'non theist' to 'atheist.'

Is it?? No, it's not the argument from ignorance at all. The argument from ignorance says 'Something is true until it is proven false'. This is 'Something is not true until it is shown to be true'. The claim 'there is a God' is a positive claim, and until such time as evidence can be presented that there IS indeed a God, it can be dismissed.

Now, if it was the positive claim 'That xxxx existed' and there is no evidence that xxx doesn't, THAT would be the argument from ignorance.

Arguing from ignorance is not knowing the answer to a question, making up an answer to the unknown question, reaching the conclusion that the made up answer MUST INEVITABLY be the only possible right answer, and then proceeding to argue for the unchallengeable and inerrant truth of the made up answer to the unknown question. In truth such an individual has remained in EXACTLY the same state of ignorance as when they began, except now they have precluded all other possibilities. Scientific speculation on the other hand involves examining all of the various possibilities based on the best current information at hand, with the implicit understanding that since not all of the necessary information is as yet available, no final conclusion is yet possible. Speculation is a perfectly useful tool. Individuals who allow their speculation to turn into dogma ARE tools. Therein lies the difference.

I think we have all been here long enough to know what an argument from ignorance looks like. Please read the Wikipedia article again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

[Goat]

.

The core evidence I have for the God not existing is the lack of evidence for it.

That would be a classic example of an argument from ignorance.

Here is where we get to go round and round again on the burden of proof being on he who alleges and the impropriety of suggesting one prove a negative. To me it is a simple matter. The theist bears the burden because he is the one who alleges. It is also one of the reasons I prefer 'non theist' to 'atheist.'

Is it?? No, it's not the argument from ignorance at all. The argument from ignorance says 'Something is true until it is proven false'. This is 'Something is not true until it is shown to be true'. The claim 'there is a God' is a positive claim, and until such time as evidence can be presented that there IS indeed a God, it can be dismissed.

Now, if it was the positive claim 'That xxxx existed' and there is no evidence that xxx doesn't, THAT would be the argument from ignorance.

Arguing from ignorance is not knowing the answer to a question, making up an answer to the unknown question, reaching the conclusion that the made up answer MUST INEVITABLY be the only possible right answer, and then proceeding to argue for the unchallengeable and inerrant truth of the made up answer to the unknown question. In truth such an individual has remained in EXACTLY the same state of ignorance as when they began, except now they have precluded all other possibilities. Scientific speculation on the other hand involves examining all of the various possibilities based on the best current information at hand, with the implicit understanding that since not all of the necessary information is as yet available, no final conclusion is yet possible. Speculation is a perfectly useful tool. Individuals who allow their speculation to turn into dogma ARE tools. Therein lies the difference.

I think we have all been here long enough to know what an argument from ignorance looks like. Please read the Wikipedia article again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Yes, I did. Let me quote from the relevant passage.

It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa).

That is not what I am saying. I am saying 'There is no reason to believe there a God is true until such time as evidence is presented that there is a God. It is not saying 'Because no evidence presented there is no God'. It is saying "Because there is no objective and public evidence for a God, there is no reason to accept that claimed God.'

If evidence can be presented, then the judgement can be reevaluated at that time. It actually is merely rejecting the argument from ignorance of the theist.