I’ve never seen theists produce any evidence of any kind. Could you cite an example of the evidence yuou’ve seen, and why you think it’s ambiguous.
Atheists don’t try to produce evidence that gods don’t exist. That’s a nonsensical claim on your part. It doesn’t happen. It is possible to test specific claims made by theists, but it is not possible to test for non-existence, nor have you seen anybody try.
Der Trihs is one among others that does it quite frequently.
So again, why do you credit the absence of evidence that massive flaws in the law of gravity exist as evidence that no such flaws exist?
How is that different from the absence of evidence that massive flaws in our understanding of the various laws and principles that define reality (such as there being a “god”) being used to support the proposition that no such gods exist?
Many of us understand what you’re arguing about agnosticism. I also have heard your position on gravity. How do you reconcile the two?
Were you just offering (as you put it) “complete nonsense” when telling me that the absence of any evidence of a mechanism that would alter how gravity works tomorrow is, in fact, enough to justify the assertion that no such mechanism exists?
It’s evidence of extreme improbability, and your overriding point is a vapid one. It is not possible to absolutely disprove the existence of gods, unicorns or Godzilla. That’s correct, but who gives a shit, and what makes any of those things worth giving serious consideration??
See his answer above. When he sees someone pointing to absence of evidence, he interprets that as a submission of evidence of absence.
Evidently (heh).
It is not possible to prove non-existence. But it is entirely possible (if we move away from the philosophical or mathematical concepts of “proof”) to test for non-existence in a practical sense (especially as, as I have already stated, the very concept of “gods” is defined in some way by theists’ claims). As Diogenes points out, the argument Frank is making does make it impossible to test for non-existence of gods–and also to test for the non-existence of godzilla, unicorns, or for evidence that Julius Caesar is actually dead. It also, as far as I see, forces one to remain agnostic about gravity.
Further, it is entirely possible for there to be evidence that supports a quite reasonable inference of non-existence–namely, the complete absence of any evidence of existence.
Yeah, you did, up to a point, and I thank you. Can you think of any changes you would make if you were to observe unambiguous (to you) evidence that they don’t exist? I’m guessing the answer is “no.”
But in a practical sense, it is. It’s not sufficient for proof that is rigid, mathematical, beyond any possibility–but (1) by that standard, try to prove ANYTHING beyond cogito, ergo sum–you can’t.
Further, (2) the absence of any evidence of an asserted phenomenon is frequently used as evidence, or at least to support an inference that the asserted phenomenon does not exist. That’s how people live their everyday lives.
That’s how science works–you can never “prove” the absence of something, but if you have enough examples of not seeing it when you’d expect to (were it to exist) it would be unreasonable to keep looking, or to remain “agnostic” in any meaningful sense.
See Michelson about that aether.
i Doubt that. You can not get proof that something that does not exist ,does not exist. However if it does, evidence should be easy to obtain. Therefore, what is it? Show me the evidence that god exists. Since there is none ,you can conclude that there is no god.
When the duck billed platypus was found , many scientists said it was not real. But when they brought one back, the argument ended. So just give a bit of evidence that god exists and we will all believe. We would have to. There would be proof. It is not a new concept. our forefathers believed in lots of gods. When we were able top explain the turning of the earth gave us the change between night and day, it was hard to defend the sun god riding across the sky. So, out you go, there is no sun god. There is nothing to convince a person that god exists. But we believe because we internalize the teachings of our youth. If you were born in Iraq, you would have attended a mosque and would have been taught about Allah in schools. You would think it was stupid not to believe in the Muslim religion. But people in America say they are wrong. Do we have that right? Personally 72 virgins is a pretty compelling reason to accept their teachings, but I do wonder whats in it for the virgins.
You’re wrong. DtC said:
I responded that Der Drihs does and others do and that’s true.
Specifically; I argue that the evidence is against the gods & religions that people actually believe in; that they violate physical laws and contradict themselves, each other, and the facts of history. I don’t try to argue much* against the very carefully undefined “gods with no qualities” that the apologists for religion bring up in these threads. First, because they are strawmen that very few if any people actually follow; second because they are left so vague that there’s little to be said of them; and third because if someone does try to argue against these undefined gods, the apologists will just start making up whatever god-quality they need like crazy, to counter any argument you make. That’s much of the point of leaving it undefined, after all; with no definition you can make any claims you like about it, even contradicting yourself from post to post. My pet name for such an entity is the God of Weaseling, since that’s what it’s for.
You can’t prove that things don’t exist (usually) but you can provide evidence of it. That you don’t get incinerated walking into your garage is certainly evidence that there is no fire-breathing dragon there. if you hypothesize a particle that is supposed to produce a certain signature at a certain energy, and you see no such signature, that is certainly evidence that the particle does not exist.
The definitions of certain types of gods lead to specific and falsifiable predictions. Jesus predicted his return. He didn’t. Only in religion does the culture as a whole ignore failed predictions like this. One of Dawkins’ major points is that if we didn’t give religion a pass on failed predictions like this they’d be about as accepted as phlogiston.
So far so good…
Ouch! Well, that’s what I’m talking about, in the two paragraphs right above. It’s pretty close to a solipsist argument, and those are pretty inane, IMO. It’s just an uninteresting argument, and that kind of non-knowledge can be applied to literally any made-up thing. I do not KNOW that there are no pixies. I do not KNOW that there is no tooth fairy. It’s a boring discussion, again, IMO, that some people seem to think becomes interesting when it involves higher powers (God or gods) rather than unicorns or Santa Claus. It’s the same damn argument either way, but no one thinks they are making a devastating point when they point out that you can’t prove there is no Easter Bunny.
So, this is all just mental masturbation. I can’t believe this has gone on this long.
I spend half my time practising the religion of atheism and the other half on my favourite hobby: NOT collecting stamps.
Atheism would technically encompass some Buddhists and other forms of spirituality that does not have a god/gods or the female counterpart(s). So Atheism includes religions, as well as Theism has people who don’t prescribe to religions, where I define religions as rules and rights given to people from a person of authority, who is seen as a moral setter and sometimes enforcer. Religion is opposite a personal relationship with God IMHO.
Most, if not all Atheists have ‘gods’ and ‘idols’ in their life, what do they fall back on in times of trouble (stashed money = idol, state authority = a god ), how do they define their reality, by science? They are trusting in others then, so they are not controlling their reality, but letting others define their reality, defining reality for others is the job of a god. Atheists have blinded themselves to the gods they worship.
If Atheists see a new unmet humanitarian need, where would they turn if they wanted to get them help, request that the state provides the funding/services, try to get a charity going which would depend on human effort to help? For religions groups, usually a religious based charity would be the answer, for a Holy Spirit filled believer it would be to ask God and follow His leading, which could be any number of responses. The Atheists are really in groups of where and how they would respond, just like the religious folks, the only different ones are the people who live by the leading of the Holy Spirit.
In very limited circumstances, it is possible to prove some things do not exist. For example, I could prove full-grown African elephants who live inside normal-sized Kellog’s Corn Flakes boxes do not exist. We would have to agree on the definition of “full-grown African Elephant” especially on it size, and also agree as to the maximum size of normal-sized Kellogs Corn Flakes boxes. But once we agree on those facts, we could prove through comparative measurement that such a type of elephant does not exist.
Going further that Atheism includes religions in it, just as Theism does, there are Atheistic Christians, or more commonly know Atheistic Jewish (where the Jewish part is strictly cultural), where they go through the traditions w/o a true belief, or disbelief, due to cultural and/or moral reasons.
Would you mind taking your nonsensical musings to another thread, please.
That’s why I said usually. If you place a strict limit on the space in which something does or does not exist, then it is possible. Or unless the thing is self-contradictory, like some flavors of God. Of course if you’re talking about the IPU (blessed be her hooves) all bets are off.