Fair to Challenge Claims?

[JoeyKnothead]

In another thread there is much complaining about atheists challenging theist claims. I find it a bit weird, what with this being a debate site and all, but there we go.

For debate:

Is it fair for atheists to challenge theist claims on this, a debate site?

Is it fair for atheists to challenge theist claims outside of debate?

What are the real and possible ramifications of challenging theist claims?

What are the real and possible ramifications of allowing theist claims to go unchallenged?

[Grumpy]

Jester

The real statement is "I see no reason to accept your god as being possible at all,

In which case, you are either deciding that you believe the claim to be false (in which case that belief should be defended), or that your aren't interested in drawing a conclusion (in which case, I don't see a means of discussing it).

I conclude, based on the lack of evidence, that any superstition or supernatural claim is not accurate until it is shown to be supported by evidence. You make the claim god exists or it is POSSIBLE that he exists, yet you cannot even describe what you mean by "god"? We can't discuss an entirely unevidenced and undefined concept at all until that concept is described(with evidence supporting the description)and shown to be a meaningful thing to discuss at all. We're still waiting on that! How can anyone discuss something that hasn't even been described, much less offer alternative concepts? Alternative to WHAT? WHAT is it I should think is false? How can any conclusion be drawn on "WHAT" if we don't even know what WHAT is? You describe WHAT and give what you consider is evidence and I will debate it with you and be able to come to a conclusion about what you say WHAT is, it's attributes and the evidence presented. Failing that, the null is no supernatural anything, no such thing of any kind has ever been evidenced, it is foolish to assume they exist other than in the imagination of man.

Grumpy

[The Mad Haranguer]

I conclude, based on the lack of evidence, that any superstition or supernatural claim is not accurate until it is shown to be supported by evidence. You make the claim god exists or it is POSSIBLE that he exists, yet you cannot even describe what you mean by "god"? We can't discuss an entirely unevidenced and undefined concept at all until that concept is described(with evidence supporting the description)and shown to be a meaningful thing to discuss at all. We're still waiting on that! How can anyone discuss something that hasn't even been described, much less offer alternative concepts? Alternative to WHAT? WHAT is it I should think is false? How can any conclusion be drawn on "WHAT" if we don't even know what WHAT is? You describe WHAT and give what you consider is evidence and I will debate it with you and be able to come to a conclusion about what you say WHAT is, it's attributes and the evidence presented. Failing that, the null is no supernatural anything, no such thing of any kind has ever been evidenced, it is foolish to assume they exist other than in the imagination of man.

Grumpy

You base your argument on the absence of evidence, but the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is like saying nothing at all. Where is your evidence that unconscious matter-energy is is the bottom line, that it is all there is and is sufficient unto itself? No evidence means your belief is unfounded.

[Grumpy]

The Mad Haranguer

You base your argument on the absence of evidence, but the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is like saying nothing at all.

It says there is no evidence of existence, I do not claim it provides proof of non-existence. But I am(and think all should be)skeptical of a concept in direct proportion to the lack of evidence of it being valid and at my most skeptical when no valid evidence at all exists. That is certainly not nothing at all.

Where is your evidence that unconscious matter-energy is is the bottom line, that it is all there is and is sufficient unto itself?

Where is any evidence that I hold that position to be true? It is all that is evidenced, however, and it is up to someone who claims there is something else to provide the evidence supporting their position. Nothing we have found in nature requires a supernatural explanation, why then posit it's existence, especially based on nothing(no evidence)? I certainly won't accept it as likely to be true or even of all but the least possible probability.

No evidence means your belief is unfounded.

But there is evidence for reality, in fact all the evidence supports reality. And it is YOUR belief that has no evidence whatsoever, so now you are admitting your beliefs are unfounded?

Grumpy

[I AM ALL I AM]

... the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. ....

G'day The Mad Haranguer.

If I am looking for a key and I search a box and find that the key is not in the box, then I have an absence of evidence of the key being in the box. As such, this is evidence of absence of the key being in the box.

If after approximately 2,000 years, no chirstian has been able to provide evidence for the existence of the 'God' described in the bible, would you equate this with evidence of absence, as with the key not being in the box ?

If not, please explain why not.

Also, would you please explain how long a search is required to go on before the absence of evidence becomes evidence of absence.

[Zzyzx]

.

If I am looking for a key and I search a box and find that the key is not in the box, then I have an absence of evidence of the key being in the box. As such, this is evidence of absence of the key being in the box.

But, but, but -- it is an INVISIBLE, undetectable key, and some old guys SAID it was in there. They also said you'd go to the dentist if you refuse to admit the key is there.

[Cathar1950]

.

If I am looking for a key and I search a box and find that the key is not in the box, then I have an absence of evidence of the key being in the box. As such, this is evidence of absence of the key being in the box.

But, but, but -- it is an INVISIBLE, undetectable key, and some old guys SAID it was in there. They also said you'd go to the dentist if you refuse to admit the key is there.

Except the box is missing and also undetectable.
All we hear are stories about someone once seeing the box and all of them have describe different locations.

[I AM ALL I AM]

.

If I am looking for a key and I search a box and find that the key is not in the box, then I have an absence of evidence of the key being in the box. As such, this is evidence of absence of the key being in the box.

But, but, but -- it is an INVISIBLE, undetectable key, and some old guys SAID it was in there. They also said you'd go to the dentist if you refuse to admit the key is there.

G'day Zzyzx.



Is that an updated version ?

Has 'Satan' been turned into a dentist now ?

Seriously though, I find it disingenious to use such a clearly absurd one line defence. It's a type of 'fail-safe', similar to "God works in mysterious ways", as if such empty platitudes have some meaning or 'great wisdom' attached to them and anyone that utters them.

I'd really like to know how long it is considered necessary to 'look' for evidence prior to there being a consensus that such evidence is not present and therefore equates to an evidence of absence. I'm looking forward to the reply.

.

If I am looking for a key and I search a box and find that the key is not in the box, then I have an absence of evidence of the key being in the box. As such, this is evidence of absence of the key being in the box.

But, but, but -- it is an INVISIBLE, undetectable key, and some old guys SAID it was in there. They also said you'd go to the dentist if you refuse to admit the key is there.

Except the box is missing and also undetectable.
All we hear are stories about someone once seeing the box and all of them have describe different locations.

G'day Cathar1950.



Ooooohhh, that pesky 'God' is such a trickster.

Maybe 'God' is playing hide and seek with us and is planning on winning by never showing up. If we all call out that 'God' wins hide and seek, maybe 'God' will appear and confirm that 'He' is the winner.

[Grumpy]

I AM ALL I AM

If I am looking for a key and I search a box and find that the key is not in the box, then I have an absence of evidence of the key being in the box. As such, this is evidence of absence of the key being in the box.

If after approximately 2,000 years, no chirstian has been able to provide evidence for the existence of the 'God' described in the bible, would you equate this with evidence of absence, as with the key not being in the box ?

If not, please explain why not.

That is known as proving a negative, it is near impossible to do. You have evidence that the key is not in the box, but that is not evidence that the key is not under the box, and if you look there and still no key it is not evidence that the key isn't under a rock in the garden....and even if we have looked everywhere we can it is not evidence that the key does not exist at all.

Science has no method, nor any reason to prove a god does not exist, but there being no evidence that he does exist means there is no reason to think it is likely.

Grumpy

[I AM ALL I AM]

I AM ALL I AM

If I am looking for a key and I search a box and find that the key is not in the box, then I have an absence of evidence of the key being in the box. As such, this is evidence of absence of the key being in the box.

If after approximately 2,000 years, no chirstian has been able to provide evidence for the existence of the 'God' described in the bible, would you equate this with evidence of absence, as with the key not being in the box ?

If not, please explain why not.

That is known as proving a negative, it is near impossible to do. You have evidence that the key is not in the box, but that is not evidence that the key is not under the box, and if you look there and still no key it is not evidence that the key isn't under a rock in the garden....and even if we have looked everywhere we can it is not evidence that the key does not exist at all.

Science has no method, nor any reason to prove a god does not exist, but there being no evidence that he does exist means there is no reason to think it is likely.

Grumpy

G'day Grumpy.

I disagree for the following reason ...

The 'God' of the bible (as I stated) is described as having certain attributes, one of which is apparent omnipresence. If this is true, then I would only have to look in one place to find this apparent 'God' of the bible.

Now if we also consider that many devout christians claim to have searched for this apparent 'God' of the bible, such claims dating back for approximately 2,000 years, and none of them have any evidence to offer to support any claim of having found this apparent 'God' of the bible, then it is apparent that the key is not in the box.

This in no way means that there isn't a god. What it does mean is that the 'God' of the bible is evidently absent based upon the claim of omnipresence that is attributed to this apparent 'God' of the bible.

As such, it is defining the claim of the apparent 'God' of the bible as being fictitious based upon the claims presented. If one such claim is shown to be fictitious, and further claims of infallibility of the bible are also claimed (which many do), then it can be deduced that there is further evidence to support that the 'God' of the bible is fictitious. Thus there may be a god/gods, though from the evidence the apparent 'God' of the bible is not one of them.

Therefore, it is the claims made that have been proven to be fictitious, while the idea of deity is still very much open for debate. Or, stated in reference to the key and the box, the key has been proven to not be in the box, though the existence of the key is still open to be evidenced.

[The Mad Haranguer]

The authors of the Bible wrote according their highest understanding, in a different age, and in a different setting. Some were more "enlightened" than others and all included a personal take on things.

There are signs of Christianity moving past the old dogmatism -- Teilhard Chardin, for example, is no longer the outcast he once was and some who were persecuted are now regarded as saints. Atheism, on the other hand, is still using thousand year old arguments and shows no sign of changing. "Where's the evidence?" they ask, as if to prove a point. The only point they prove by doing so is their own ignorance.