"Atheists believe there is no God"

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 6064
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 58 times
Contact:

Post #51

Post by William »

wiploc wrote:
William wrote: That really doesn't narrow it down though.
If you want us to believe in gods, you have the burden of proof. There is no point in asking us what evidence will suffice when, if we made up an argument for you, you would just say, "Wait, that isn't my argument."

If you come up with a real reason to believe, many of us will believe.

Failing that, if you produce a reason that you think is good enough, but that isn't really, then we'll tell you what's wrong with it.

But there's no point in trying to get us to take both sides of the argument.
One of the things about looking at both sides of the argument is that one has more chance of learning something.

Apart from that, there certainly is the need to be specific. In this thread I am challenged to provide evidence - not for a claim, but simply for what I think is possibly what is going on and why it is going on...and I gave similar response to the particular fallacy of burden of proof demanded.

On another forum today I responded to a reply on burden of proof, in relation to being linked to this article; titled;

Positive Claims, Negative Claims: Which Has The Burden Of Proof?

My answer to the article was this;

As to the information on the link you provided;
The reasoning here is a fallacy of logic.

Giant pandas and space-faring tiny invisible coffee cups are not the same thing as ideas of God, and thus cannot be logically used as analogies because of this.

In the case of Pandas, they can be shot (as the article you linked mentions) or captured in order to show that they exist.

In the case of the miniscule invisible coffee cup, logic alone is enough to suppose that there isn't any such thing because we all know coffee cups are visible and that invisible things cannot be shown to be coffee cups or indeed dragons in the garage or pink unicorns.

Invisible means unable to be seen and thus unable to be described as any particular form on that count.

The idea of muti-universes brought about through the theory of quantum physics cannot show these actually exist but could exist as far as the mathematics are concerned.
Thus muti-universes are invisible, and cannot therefore be described in any way which involves form.
They can be spoken of as invisible multi-universes but cannot be shown to exist in any form.

This is the same with many ideas of God.

If a claim that a god exists but is not able to be seen (is invisible) then no burden of proof need be required or otherwise demanded. To do so is, simply put - a fallacy. A false demand. An illogical demand.

Even that a person might claim that an invisible god (or intelligent designer(s) ) exist (or might exist) there is no reason to believe that person, so still no reason to demand evidence.

I think it - perhaps very likely - that this universe is a simulation (as per the OP) and there is no claim on my part that anyone believes me. I simple laid out the points as to why I think that and expand on those as necessary.

User avatar
H.sapiens
Guru
Posts: 2043
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:08 pm
Location: Ka'u Hawaii

Post #52

Post by H.sapiens »

[quote="[url=http://debatin
Monta wrote: gchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=838516#838516]TheBeardedDude[/url]"]
H.sapiens wrote: It is rather amusing to watch the religionists scurry about unable as they fail to comprehend that the existence or non-existence of gods is far from the forefront of atheists' concerns. It is, in fact, way down the list, well below "what shall I have for breakfast" and "where will my next bathroom break be available?"

Once one has rationally reduced the probability of the existence of gods to a value approaching zero as a limit, the topic embodies no further interest except when religionists attempt to shove their bilge-water down your throat.
I am far more concerned with the religious trying to inject their religious views/opinions and/or "morals" down my throat and into my life. This is why I choose to engage in these debates, to remind the religious that they aren't the only ones who live on this planet. We have to live WITH one another.
Well, thanks for the reminder but we already know you are here.
Meanwhile isn't there Discuss Atheism Forum?
[/quote]But you are in the science and religion forum ... quick, come up with some science.
Monta wrote: Mind yu might be bit dull, the same thing again and again... at least here we discover something new every day; as God is infinite, so is love and wisdom and we all come from a different angle to share.
Very generous of you, "sharing" a non-existent item.

User avatar
H.sapiens
Guru
Posts: 2043
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:08 pm
Location: Ka'u Hawaii

Post #53

Post by H.sapiens »

[quote="[url=http://debatin
Monta wrote: gchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=838516#838516]TheBeardedDude[/url]"]
H.sapiens wrote: It is rather amusing to watch the religionists scurry about unable as they fail to comprehend that the existence or non-existence of gods is far from the forefront of atheists' concerns. It is, in fact, way down the list, well below "what shall I have for breakfast" and "where will my next bathroom break be available?"

Once one has rationally reduced the probability of the existence of gods to a value approaching zero as a limit, the topic embodies no further interest except when religionists attempt to shove their bilge-water down your throat.
I am far more concerned with the religious trying to inject their religious views/opinions and/or "morals" down my throat and into my life. This is why I choose to engage in these debates, to remind the religious that they aren't the only ones who live on this planet. We have to live WITH one another.
Well, thanks for the reminder but we already know you are here.
Meanwhile isn't there Discuss Atheism Forum?
[/quote]But you are in the science and religion forum ... quick, come up with some science.
Monta wrote: Mind yu might be bit dull, the same thing again and again... at least here we discover something new every day; as God is infinite, so is love and wisdom and we all come from a different angle to share.
Very generous of you, "sharing" a non-existent item.

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm

Post #54

Post by Blastcat »

[Replying to post 48 by William]


[center]

Theists don't know what evidence can convince outsiders of their God Hypothesis

Part One: Trouble defining "evidence'.[/center]

Kenisaw wrote: Anything verifiable will do. Anything. One little scrap of empirical evidence is all it takes to change everything. You got any?
William wrote:
But that's the problem right there. You say ' any piece of empirical data would do'
but for what, you do not define.
We are asking theists to PROVIDE evidence. If you don't even know what evidence is, and are in need of definition, I suggest a standard dictionary for that.

Do you need help with that?
Don't be shy to ask for help:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence



:)

Kenisaw
Guru
Posts: 2052
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
Location: St Louis, MO, USA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #55

Post by Kenisaw »

William wrote:
Kenisaw wrote:

It's been my experience that most atheists at this website have spent a great deal of time and effort describing all kinds of evidence that would work. The best way to sum it up would be to say: "any evidence". Literally any piece of empirical data would do.

If anything like this actually existed, however, we'd all know about it by now. It would have been on every news channel and billboard on the planet. You would have even posted it yourself, instead of complaining about the need to define what constitutes evidence.

Anything verifiable will do. Anything. One little scrap of empirical evidence is all it takes to change everything. You got any?
But that's the problem right there. You say ' any piece of empirical data would do'
but for what, you do not define.
You remind me of President Clinton, wanting to know what the meaning of "is" is...

Data: "facts and statistics collected together for reference or analysis."
Evidence: "data that confirms or supports a statement, theory, or finding; confirmation."
Empirical: "based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation of evidence rather than theory or pure logic."

A fingerprint. Some DNA. A fossilized footprint from Mt Sinai. A godly fart. In other words, as I wrote in my last post, literally anything. Any empirical data will do. Got any?
Lacking evidence does not define atheism. Lacking belief defines atheism. This is why I said;
This is where the default position of atheism branches off into subsets.

One does not need to lack belief in GOD(s) because one has not been convinced GOD(s) actually exist.

Furthermore, when one demands some kind of evidence in order to be convinced but refrains from saying what evidence that would have to be, there leaves little to nothing to respond to.
When I wrote "One does not need to lack belief in GOD(s) because one has not been convinced GOD(s) actually exist." what I am saying is that it is the lack of belief rather than the lack of evidence which defines atheism as a position...the subsets are a different kettle of fish.

So how am I to respond to your asking me if I have any 'piece of empirical data'? Data for what?
Your mistake here is that atheism does not exist in a vacuum. You should have asked yourself why someone lacks a belief in the supernatural. The answer, from everything I've ever read/discussed/heard from atheists, is that there is no evidence for such a claim. It's the lack of evidence that leads to the position of atheism.

Separately, the request for evidence is usually made not because an atheist does NOT believe, but because a cultist makes the claim that the supernatural DOES exist. As the claimant, it is the responsibility of that person to support their claim. The inability of such claimants to provide this support is of no surprise to a person that has already tried to find such evidence and could not...
Now you and others are the type of Atheist who think they are atheists because they have never had any 'empirical data' in which to convince you to be 'not an atheist' (I assume) so since the default position of atheism is 'lacks belief in gods' can I suppose you are asking for any piece of empirical data' which could possibly convince you gods exist.

That really doesn't narrow it down though.

Put another way, anything which has already been acknowledged as a piece of empirical data can be considered 'ordinary' (for the sake of the argument) so therefore the kind of piece of empirical data you are asking for would be 'extraordinary' in relation to the ordinary.

Am I getting warm? Help me out here. :)
Quite chilly I'm afraid. Why would you think anything "extraordinary" is required, hmm? Every single one of the vast number of god creatures that humans have been infatuated with interact with the universe on a regular basis. Most gods have become human or possessed a human. They send floods, locusts, tornadoes, earthquakes. They speak to people all the time. All these interactions, in a universe proven time and again to exist with conversation laws, means evidence must have been produced. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. According to Christians for example, there are miracles happening on a daily basis. If these divine critters are doing things in this universe, there HAS to be data and information produced as a result. Tens of thousands of different supernatural beings, doing all manner of things on Earth, and you guys can't find even one little old scrap of empirical data to support the claim that this stuff is real? Surely there has to be something....got any?

Rufus21
Scholar
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 5:30 pm

Post #56

Post by Rufus21 »

William wrote: The idea of muti-universes brought about through the theory of quantum physics cannot show these actually exist but could exist as far as the mathematics are concerned.
Thus muti-universes are invisible, and cannot therefore be described in any way which involves form.
They can be spoken of as invisible multi-universes but cannot be shown to exist in any form.
Ask a physicyst for evidence of multiple universes and they will gladly give it to you.

Ask a thiest for evidence or their beliefs and they say:
William wrote:If a claim that a god exists but is not able to be seen (is invisible) then no burden of proof need be required or otherwise demanded. To do so is, simply put - a fallacy. A false demand. An illogical demand.
Apparently invisible things don't require verification? Asking for evidence is illogical? What a strange world to live in.

William wrote: Even that a person might claim that an invisible god (or intelligent designer(s) ) exist (or might exist) there is no reason to believe that person, so still no reason to demand evidence.
Unless that person is trying to convince other people that the invisible thing exists.
Or if you are investigating the claim because you might want to believe it yourself.
Or if the person claims that their beliefs are true.
Or if the person claims that you should follow their rules and enforce them on others.
Or if the person claims that the only way to achieve eternal salvation and to avoid the horrors of infinite pain and suffering is to believe them.

Then the demand for proof is reasonable - mandatory even.

William wrote: I think it - perhaps very likely - that this universe is a simulation (as per the OP) and there is no claim on my part that anyone believes me. I simple laid out the points as to why I think that and expand on those as necessary.
So you believe something but you aren't claiming that it is true. Interesting approach. I wish all religions could be as honest as you. Then we could have a sincere and unbiased discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of a belief.

Kenisaw
Guru
Posts: 2052
Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2015 2:41 pm
Location: St Louis, MO, USA
Been thanked: 3 times

Post #57

Post by Kenisaw »

William wrote:
One of the things about looking at both sides of the argument is that one has more chance of learning something.
I would agree. That is exactly what goes on at this website.
Apart from that, there certainly is the need to be specific. In this thread I am challenged to provide evidence - not for a claim, but simply for what I think is possibly what is going on and why it is going on...and I gave similar response to the particular fallacy of burden of proof demanded.
Stating what you think is possibly going on is, by the definition of the word, a claim.

Claim: "state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof".

The problem you ran into in that thread, if I understood all the commentary properly, is that the discussion went from philosophical talk to a more scientific slant. You admitted that you didn't want to actually debate the topic though, so I agree requests for evidence were superfluous.

In my particular view that is why philosophical debates are often useless, because they aren't based on anything verifiable.
On another forum today I responded to a reply on burden of proof, in relation to being linked to this article; titled;

Positive Claims, Negative Claims: Which Has The Burden Of Proof?

My answer to the article was this;

As to the information on the link you provided;
The reasoning here is a fallacy of logic.

Giant pandas and space-faring tiny invisible coffee cups are not the same thing as ideas of God, and thus cannot be logically used as analogies because of this.

In the case of Pandas, they can be shot (as the article you linked mentions) or captured in order to show that they exist.

In the case of the miniscule invisible coffee cup, logic alone is enough to suppose that there isn't any such thing because we all know coffee cups are visible and that invisible things cannot be shown to be coffee cups or indeed dragons in the garage or pink unicorns.

Invisible means unable to be seen and thus unable to be described as any particular form on that count.


Just an FYI: Dark matter cannot be seen but it's effect on other matter can. Invisible is not a limitation to discovery...

The idea of muti-universes brought about through the theory of quantum physics cannot show these actually exist but could exist as far as the mathematics are concerned.
Thus muti-universes are invisible, and cannot therefore be described in any way which involves form.
They can be spoken of as invisible multi-universes but cannot be shown to exist in any form.


At this time they cannot be shown to exist. Personally I don't try to put limitations on what can and can't be determined scientifically in the future...

This is the same with many ideas of God.

If a claim that a god exists but is not able to be seen (is invisible) then no burden of proof need be required or otherwise demanded. To do so is, simply put - a fallacy. A false demand. An illogical demand.


Sorry but I disagree. Any specific positive claim of anything, especially when that thing interacts in a universe with conversation laws, is not only prudent but necessary, because empirical evidence MUST exist as a result of those interactions.

Even that a person might claim that an invisible god (or intelligent designer(s) ) exist (or might exist) there is no reason to believe that person, so still no reason to demand evidence.


Sorry, but this is nonsense. That they believe it, and that someone else asks for their evidence as to why they believe it, is perfectly fair and appropriate. If someone doesn't want their claim challenged, don't come onto a public forum and make them.

I apologize if I am wrong here, but I have seen this tactic by cultists in the past, but don't know if this is your end game. They want to make their god creature claims but don't want anyone challenging them. That way some wayward person can visit this site and read their unsupported conjecture and possibly think it is true. To let any such speculation go unchallenged, regardless of the topic, is irresponsible of a society. Ideas should always be debated and discussed. Not all ideas are of equal value, and the better ones should win out over the lesser ones. Letting bad ideas go unchecked is itself a really bad idea...

TheBeardedDude
Scholar
Posts: 258
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:06 pm
Location: Connecticut

Post #58

Post by TheBeardedDude »

Monta wrote:
TheBeardedDude wrote:
H.sapiens wrote: It is rather amusing to watch the religionists scurry about unable as they fail to comprehend that the existence or non-existence of gods is far from the forefront of atheists' concerns. It is, in fact, way down the list, well below "what shall I have for breakfast" and "where will my next bathroom break be available?"

Once one has rationally reduced the probability of the existence of gods to a value approaching zero as a limit, the topic embodies no further interest except when religionists attempt to shove their bilge-water down your throat.
I am far more concerned with the religious trying to inject their religious views/opinions and/or "morals" down my throat and into my life. This is why I choose to engage in these debates, to remind the religious that they aren't the only ones who live on this planet. We have to live WITH one another.
Well, thanks for the reminder but we already know you are here.
Meanwhile isn't there Discuss Atheism Forum?
Mind yu might be bit dull, the same thing again and again... at least here we discover something new every day; as God is infinite, so is love and wisdom and we all come from a different angle to share.
I participate in numerous forums, not only this. I also frequent The Thinking Atheist forum.

As far as the "Mind yu(sic) might be bit dull" comment, perhaps it would be best to not be insulting if you want me to care about what you say?

"...at least here we discover something new every day; as God is infinite, so is love and wisdom and we all come from a different angle to share."

Do you assume I don't learn anything?

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 6064
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 58 times
Contact:

Post #59

Post by William »

Kenisaw wrote:
William wrote:
One of the things about looking at both sides of the argument is that one has more chance of learning something.
I would agree. That is exactly what goes on at this website.
:study:

Stating what you think is possibly going on is, by the definition of the word, a claim.

Claim: "state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof".
I am not asserting anything IS the case, only that it might be the case, which is not the same thing.
The problem you ran into in that thread, if I understood all the commentary properly, is that the discussion went from philosophical talk to a more scientific slant. You admitted that you didn't want to actually debate the topic though, so I agree requests for evidence were superfluous.
Quite.
Though it was not a problem that science was part of the subject because the subject was specific to the physical universe, something science is employed upon to examine. What was attempted in order to make it a problem was the demand for scientific evidence to back up the idea presented in the OP - an idea that is not overall a question of science in which science can obtain the answer.
In my particular view that is why philosophical debates are often useless, because they aren't based on anything verifiable.
Which is precisely why philosophical and theological ideas exist and persist because they are largely things of the mind which is something presently out of the reach of science. Scientists of course are free to examine such concepts and even experience alternate states subjectively. Anyone is.

Just an FYI: Dark matter cannot be seen but it's effect on other matter can. Invisible is not a limitation to discovery...
This is not invisibility in the context given. It is without any seen form, but can at least easily be seen to interact with other stuff, thus providing something which can be measured thus not truly invisible.

It isn't totally a bad analogy to use in relation to the subject of GOD (and related experiences) but those experiences are largely subjective to the individual and organised religion has been used to control and shape beliefs in order to 'explain' the experiences and even own them, often with political secular agenda - and that adds to the confusion but must be considered as part of the whole process.
At this time they cannot be shown to exist. Personally I don't try to put limitations on what can and can't be determined scientifically in the future...
Nor I. But for now, I am speaking of 'for the time being - in the present moment'

This is the same with many ideas of God.

If a claim that a god exists but is not able to be seen (is invisible) then no burden of proof need be required or otherwise demanded. To do so is, simply put - a fallacy. A false demand. An illogical demand.

Sorry but I disagree. Any specific positive claim of anything, especially when that thing interacts in a universe with conversation laws, is not only prudent but necessary, because empirical evidence MUST exist as a result of those interactions.
As indeed it does, through the experiences of a great deal many individuals, coming from all manner of cultures (baggage and all) and aligned with some notion of an alternate reality interacting with our one through individual experience.
Of course, science is unable to work with the subjective without the objective agreement of the scientists. Therefore, scientists are limited to pursue the examination of the physical universe rather than of the mind. In relation to the mind, there is brain which is - at present - as far as they can go.

But science is unable to absorb philosophical and theological idealism in any way in which to fully eradicate it from the human mind, short of manipulating the brain in order to attempt to bring such thinking to an end.

Even that a person might claim that an invisible god (or intelligent designer(s) ) exist (or might exist) there is no reason to believe that person, so still no reason to demand evidence.
Sorry, but this is nonsense. That they believe it, and that someone else asks for their evidence as to why they believe it, is perfectly fair and appropriate. If someone doesn't want their claim challenged, don't come onto a public forum and make them.
This hearkens back to conversation laws you mentioned but misunderstands the nature of personal experience to the degree that it demands "show up or shut up", neither of which is acceptable or appropriate to that one who had/continues to have the experience(s).

What it amounts to is that the individual making the demand has to make the effort rather than the 'evidence' being given to the demanding on a silver platter so to speak.
Someone else's experiences are no substitute for your own, and all that can be said is to encourage the demanding to seek for themselves and see what might happen...

...Remembering the nature of the subject spoken about. It is something which seems more than willing to prove itself under certain circumstances, none of which stem from the attitude of demand or to directly pamper the purpose of science.

Another reason why someone might want to speak of their experiences and subsequent beliefs regarding those experiences is that they wish to test them out in the face of opposition to see if the opposition can come up with reasonable arguments which may, at the very least, separate beliefs that have attached themselves to the experience(s) from the experiences themselves.

Lots of reason really, to speak up. Even that there is nothing particularly scientific to present in relation to evidence.
I apologize if I am wrong here, but I have seen this tactic by cultists in the past, but don't know if this is your end game. They want to make their god creature claims but don't want anyone challenging them. That way some wayward person can visit this site and read their unsupported conjecture and possibly think it is true. To let any such speculation go unchallenged, regardless of the topic, is irresponsible of a society. Ideas should always be debated and discussed. Not all ideas are of equal value, and the better ones should win out over the lesser ones. Letting bad ideas go unchecked is itself a really bad idea...
I have no 'end game' that I am aware of. I am propelled by a number of reasons which could be considered agenda, but specifically not really my agenda, or my idea.

One of those reasons is that I see the human potential to transform the present systems of disparity inherited down the line, into a system of parity.

Given the systems of disparity currently honed to near perfection in this day and age, it can be logically argued that they can be sourced at a cult-like initial position and have and thus will continue to have a negative affect on the majority of humanity.
Such systems are taught to be protected, invested in, fought for, and die for by the very population controlled by said systems.

Why? Because it is the result of letting bad ideas go unchecked and thus, yes - a really bad idea overall.

Thus also why the predominance of alternative realities influencing the mind of the greater population - faiths and hopes focused primarily on what GOD can do for human beings because it is very apparent that those human beings who have the power influence and wherewithal to seriously assist with building a shared type of Utopia as a system of parity, are at present somewhat busy building their individual micro utopias for themselves and their significant others.

All under the banner of "It is only natural - science shows us so."

Yeah right. Depends on how the evidence is interpreted.

But anyhow, no use complaining and making demands which amount to 'show us god or shut up' as it ain't obviously going to happen.

Thus, it is illogical to demand that it does/should happen, otherwise 'we no listen'
and business as usual.

My thoughts on GOD are not about applying faith but reason. In that I may well be outside the more common religious/cult type dogmas. IMHO the idea of GOD cleans up quite nicely once those things are washed from it.

:)







:study:

Monta
Guru
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2015 6:29 am

Post #60

Post by Monta »

[Replying to post 59 by William]


"...Remembering the nature of the subject spoken about. It is something which seems more than willing to prove itself under certain circumstances, none of which stem from the attitude of demand or to directly pamper the purpose of science. "

'Don't throw pearls before the swine'

(not because they are swine but because they wouldn't know what to do with it*)

Post Reply