The claim that “there is no evidence for the existence of a God” seems like a pretty big claim to me. What evidence/argument would you present to show that it is the case?
Calculon.
Again, this is an example of the kind of puerile nonsense that theists have to resort to. Do you seriously not understand that someone doesn’t have to provide evidence that there is no evidence for something?
Space ninjas. Provide evidence that they don’t exist? Can’t? That doesn’t mean they exist.
Your inability to provide any evidence, is my evidence.
Your lack of evidence. What a slackjawed dillhole you are.
You’ve been bested. After careful consideration of the non-evidence, Calculon has concluded that God, Jesus, Krishna, Ahura Mazdā, Zeus, Anubis, Quetzalcoatl, Marduk, Apollo, Cthulhu— I could go on and on— may be assumed to exist until specifically disproven.
Must be one hell of a daily ceremony to cover all the bases.
You claimed that I was speaking gibberish on the basis that there is no existence for God. You are the one that made the claim that there is no evidence, all I am asking is that you back up your assertion.
There are lots of ways you could do this. For instance you could try to show that the concept of God is logically contradictory and therefore God cannot possibly exist, and therefore there can be no evidence God.
Alternatively, you could try to show that if God did exist, some secondary statement must necessarily be true. If this statement is false then that would again provide evidence that God does not exist and again there is no evidence for him. To put it in symbolic language the argument goes:
- If A is true then B must be true
- B is not true
- Therefore A is false.
So to take your example of “Space ninjas”, I would take the first route and simply point out that the definition of ninjas (“A ninja (忍者?) or shinobi (忍び?) was a covert agent or mercenary in feudal Japan who specialized in unorthodox warfare.” according to Wikipedia) is inconsistent with the additional requirement of being in space. Ninjas, cannot originate from space because then they would not fit under the definition of what could be considered a ninja. Therefore since space ninjas are logically impossible then no evidence for their existence can exist. Simple.
However even if you come back with another entity that isn’t so patently absurd, the point still stands that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence . If there is no evidence for the existence or non-existence of an entity then you cannot make any conclusion as to whether or not that thing exists. It is simply fallacious to say that if there is no evidence for any statement A then that statement must be false. There is no rule of logical inference that allows you to make that claim. So even if you accept that there is no evidence for the existence of God it simply doesn’t follow that God does not exist. You need some reason as to why non-existence is at least more likely than existence.
Secondly your (and also FixMyIgnorance) reply in asking me to provide evidence is a complete non-sequiter. Your claim was not that I am unable to provide evidence for the existence of God, but that no evidence existed without qualification. That means that even if I am unable to provide evidence for the existence of God, that in no way justifies your position that there is indeed no evidence for the existence of God. Again no logical rule of inference allows you to go from the statement that I have no evidence for the existence of God to therefore no evidence exists anywhere.
This claim that there is no evidence for the existence of God is something that you see a lot in atheist discussions but I have never seen any logical argument to show that this is indeed the case. I think really it is an atheist “statement of faith” that is simply believed emotionally without any argument or evidence.
Calculon.
Wow. You’re a fucking imbecile.
No one has ever given any evidence for God. So I feel safe saying that there is none, since inept children like you would hold it up and shout if from the rooftops.
Honestly, this is embarrassing.
It’s not apparent that you understand the distinction between evidence and logic, and as a consequence your sentence is a non sequitur.
There is no logical argument to show that there are no leftover pork casserole in my fridge. Indeed logically there is nothing to rule out that possibility.. Fact is though, there is no evidence of any.
First of all, I think the statement that no-one has given any evidence for God is simply absurd. Most religions have arguments and evidence for their positions. If you actually made the effort to understand the views of religious people you would know that. You may not agree with any of the arguments and evidence, but disagreeing with them is very different to saying that they don’t exist. I think the claim that no-one, anywhere, has ever suggested something might be evidence for God is simply disconnected from reality.
Secondly, what rule of logical inference are you using to go from no evidence to non-existence. Even if I am an inept child that still does not allow you to logically infer there is no God on the basis of lack of evidence.
Calculon.
So if there is no evidence of any leftovers, then it is not possible to form logical arguments about the existence or non-existence of the pork casserole. Logical arguments require premises and without evidence to form the premises logical conclusions cannot be drawn in either direction.
So to go back to the point at hand without any evidence for or against the existence of God it is not possible to infer either that God exists or does not exist. So even if you grant the atheist position then it does not logically follow that God does not exist. Thus the statement that no-one has given any evidence that God exists therefore God does not exist is simply logically invalid.
Calculon.
Such evidence as there is, is utterly unconvincing. Personally I wouldn’t go so far as to state that there is “no evidence” in so many words, because it leave the position open for someone (like yourself) to refer to various bits of pissweak dribble and suggest I am being overly absolute. If you think that there is any evidence actually worthy of serious consideration, let us know what.
As to your second paragraph and your most recent post, I think you will find most if not all those you are arguing with are not saying they can logically infer that no gods exist. They are saying there is no evidence any do exist, so they don’t believe.
Something very close to 100% of all threads on this subject on this board include theists desperately assuming that the atheists they are arguing with claim they have evidence or proof that there is no god, or that the atheists have a positive belief there is or can be no god.
Meanwhile, the atheists over and over again point out that they claim no such thing; only that there is no evidence for a god, and they have no reason to believe in one any more than in Russell’s teapot.
Really, when the best you can do is pretend your opponent holds an indefensible position because any discussion of your opponent’s actual position leaves you floundering, you might want to consider the possibility you are wrong.
It’s like watching Liberal’s retarded half-brother slooooowly work his way up to the MOP “gotcha” - it’s painful.
MOP?
This is exactly the type of puerile nonsense you guys come up with. I have position X. You have position Y. If you want me to also have position Y, you have to bring evidence.
And it’s not even like it’s hard. You’ve never seen him. All things you’ve seen attributed to God have had either natural causes or have been proven not to happen. You can posit a world without God that works. ALL OF THIS IS YOUR EVIDENCE.
This right here is exactly an example of the stupid shit Dawkins says. He actually thinks that you don’t have to being evidence for a negative proposal. It’s a prime example of him being out of his element when dealing with theology. He’s used to a deductive logic when theology and other philosophies are based on inductive logic. And, yes, inductive logic isn’t as clear cut.
I honestly can’t understand why otherwise intelligent people buy this shit about not having to argue non-existence. I mean, it’s like they have a blind spot, since all of them actually do argue for nonexistence all the fucking time.
Then again, these same people argue that religious tolerance is something they shouldn’t have to do, but then get all bent out of shape when someone doesn’t tolerate their lack of belief. They talk about the inanity of others’ positions, but conveniently overlook that their own beliefs (or lack thereof) are considered inane by a majority of existing humans. Whether you think something is inane is a rather poor argument for whether or not you should tolerate it.
If it were, then I would have to be completely intolerant to all you guys for lapping up this crap about not having to prove a negative. Instead I know that your inanity is mostly harmless, especially as long as there’s someone out there to point out how inane it is.
No, you wrong. I merely say the natural laws of the world are adequate to explain all that we see and experience thus far. If something currently supernatural wanted to make a case for itself then fair enough, I’ll listen. As yet it has been found wanting. As it stands, the burden of evidence is not on me.
Oh, and “proven not to happen” isn’t a helpful term. Try “not proven that it has happened”.
And here is where you lose all credibility. Dawkins spends an inordinate amount of time explaining, in very clear language, that he is not saying “god does not exist”. He tells you almost in words of one syllable why that is not a claim he will make.
I cannot comprehend how you can read the book and yet miss that crucial fact. The chapter heading even gives it away.
Courtiers reply again and again and again. One must play by the rules of theology in order to criticise it, even though such rules are are set-up so as to preclude any meaningful discussion?
Non-existence of a supernatural entity is the default position. Here is a simple example that I’m sure you will try and wriggle out of.
Imagine any supernatural entity you like…go on…right now. Make it as outlandish as you like. Now then, understand that pretty much everyone else in the world is in the default position of not believing in your entity. They will carry on with their lives as if it doesn’t exists. Should you now wish to convince us otherwise then it is up to you to bring evidence. I have to do precisely fuck-all.
And yet Richard Dawkins is a passionate believer in the freedom of religion and tolerance thereof. Inanity and everything. How weird is that?
I realise you are using the word inane a lot but you aren’t doing much more than that.
This is where it gets interesting IMHO. When pushed you acknowledge that really there are evidence and arguments for the existence of God, but that these are to you “utterly unconvincing”. This to me seems really problematic. Because when it comes down to it what your atheism is based on is not evidence and reason but your own subjective and ultimately emotional incredulity of the existence of God. Without any positive argument for atheism then I think you have no rational epistemic warrant for the conclusion that God does not exist.
Whether or not personally find arguments for the existence of God convincing says nothing about whether God does in fact actually exist or not. Simply not being convinced by arguments is not evidence or an argument in of itself. The reasons that you don’t find theistic arguments convincing may be either that you don’t understand them, or that you simply have missed key arguments.
This is I think fundamentally the problem with Dawkins style atheists. While they pay lip service to evidence and rationality the fundamental reason why they are atheists is that they emotionally feel that God is inherently ridiculous. In that way they are actually immune to rational evidence and argumentation because when it is presented to them it is emotionally rejected without it being logically evaluated. That is why I haven’t launched into reasons why I think God exists. It’s not that I have no reasons, it is that until the underlying flawed atheist epistemology is exposed then it simply is pointless.
The problem is that atheists here and elsewhere continue to claim that particular, if not all religions are fundamentally wrong in that their God does not exist. This statement commits themselves to positively saying that some or all Gods do not exist. Lack of evidence cuts both ways. If there is no evidence of any sort for the existence or non-existence of God then the statements that “God exists” and “God does not exist” are equally warranted. If atheists limited themselves to the statement that they themselves choose not to believe because they find no epistemic warrant for belief in God, but they acknowledge that belief in God is warranted and that God may actually exist then that would be fine. None of the people that I am arguing against would AFAICT accept that position.
Theists assume that atheists have evidence or proof for the non-existence of God because atheists on these boards and elsewhere are constantly asserting that God does not exist. The theists then assume that the atheist must have some sort of positive argument for the non-existence of God since that is the claim that they are making. Possibly what the theists do not factor in is that many atheists here aparently have no evidence or arguments for the claims that they make.
But by the same token they have no reason to disbelieve in the existence of God either. So from the atheist would have no argument against the person that claims that the teapot does in fact exist, because they have no reason to doubt that conclusion, just as they have no reas on to doubt the conclusion that the teapot does not exist.
In all honesty I think that you are the one that is floundering. So far you have not presented any rational, objective evidence for why religion is wrong. All you seem to have is your subjective emotional incredulity to the existence of God. If you think that atheism is more correct that religious positions you should be able to present some sort of argument as to why that is the case. So far all you have presented is repeated and increasingly qualified assertions that there is no evidence for the existence of God. If you have no real arguments for your position then I suggest that it is you that should consider the possibility that you are wrong.
Calculon.
This is all honestly really embarrassing to watch.
It rained this morning. The fact that it rained is proof that your dicklessness is a logical necessity.
See what I did there?
Is the answer “demonstrated that you have no idea what the philosophical concept of logical necessity means”? Or perhaps the answer is “demonstrated that you have no intelligent reply to arguments against your position by resorting to purile insults”? I am finding it hard to decide which it is. :dubious:
choke cough
Even if true, this is born, from the fact that I have yet to see any evidence for your God.
As per usual, you are not presenting any evidence to change that subjective emotional incredulity…Because you don’t have any.
All you are doing, when asked to present evidence, is some kind of “gotcha happy dance” ;
“You can’t prove he doesn’t exist”
“You can’t prove he doesn’t exist”
“You can’t prove he doesn’t exist”
No I understand those concepts just fine. But you don’t seem to get it: There’s no logical necessity behind God.
Show me evidence that there is no parallel universe where everything is mirrored compared to our world.