In the context of Thomas Aquinas’s arguments (are we still talking about those?), what kind of “evidence” are you talking about? It seems to me that there’s a whole world full of evidence (things that exist, things that are “in motion,” things that have been caused); you just don’t think that evidence points to the same conclusion that Aquinas does.
Yeah, I’m going to need a bit more than someone pointing at ladybugs and rainbows and saying “How can you look at that and not believe in Gawd?!?” If someone wants to put forth actual evidence that they think points towards the existence of their particular deity, I’m willing to take a look-see.
I’ve been arguing this on line for over 40 years, and have noted only one atheist who makes the statement “God doesn’t exist” in the sense “I know God doesn’t exist.” A lack of belief in god, yes, a belief that god doesn’t exist, yes, but no proof or knowledge.
Because: which God? Certain varieties of god are logically inconsistent - I can know that these Gods do not exist. Certain classes of God remove themselves from us so the universe with them or without them is indistinguishable. I can hardly claim such a god does not exist. Doesn’t matter, yes.
Which God are you talking about?
Newton’s clockwork universe fits Aquinas’s proofs quite well. The better understood quantum universe does not. We have plenty of examples of the constancy of time also, but that does not disprove relativity.
I agree with you. I personally don’t see why “proof!” is held in such reverence. I strongly suspect it’s because of the caprice demonstrated (or ignorance!) displayed by believers. It’s perfectly fine, imv, to say, "I don’t believe in god, or leprechauns. It’s common sense."That’s a self evident and objective statement.
And so is, “I choose not to believe in god”, “I don’t believe there is a god”, “there is no evidence of a god”, and the like are objective statements. They offer no proof, nor is proof required.
The moment you cross into a positive, affirmative statement like, “there is no god” you’ve made a huge paradigm shift. It is the polar opposite and qualitative equivalent of “there is a god” and shares the same burden.
If “proof” is the only criteria in answering the question[s] “who are we?”, “how did we get here?”, or, “Is there a god?” the answer must be unknowable. That’s un-fulfilling to most so they prefer to “know”; or establish their own “truth” to answer. So they put their trust in something that makes sense. They develop faith in something. (even if it’s themselves) Since they can’t prove it, they bridge the gap with faith or trust of some sort. Both atheists and theists recognize this and acknowledge their subjective belief.
Those who don’t join message boards and witness. 
Great question.
And in the end it’s a personal thing. Everyone examines (or say they did) the evidence and determines if there is a god, and if so, who he/she is. To the extent I differentiate the differences or “vet” them (for the purpose of laying siege to their God or non-god) I’m witnessing to them. My beliefs no matter how well researched and compelling (to me anyway) share in common with the guy who has a friend who jumps to the moon is that they’re *both beliefs.
*
Surely you know these facts were not in the original author’s post, yes? Did you not think it important that this friend had supernatural powers? Did you think it would have changed my answer? Seriously? Let’s close this goal, because we’re soon to be BFFs.
My answer based on new information: I absolutely cannot prove this supernatural friend cannot jump to the moon. I’m limited to the natural world and the tools in it. I might be interested in examining the evidence of this claim, but in the end my feeling will be* my own, personal, and a belief.*
Surely you’d agree with that.
And there’s nothing wrong with that Nothing.
They’ve achieved moral certainty. Objectivity and subjectivity have merged because they’ve become convinced of the “truth.” But it seems incumbent upon the believer (and both the atheist and theist believe in something. It’s only the agnostic that “believes nothing.”) to fess up to their “faith” [in something] (I hear **Czarcasm **throw up in his mouth every time I say that.)
I agree and fully respect that statement. And agree.
They’ve simply attained certainty; a devout development in what they believe.
Objective proof they cannot produce. To the extent they can respond to you at all, it’s by sharing** their personal beliefs.** (which you are free to reject.)
What is it specifically that an atheist supposedly believes in, raindog?
I’m not sure, actually. I imagine it varies. They believe in themselves perhaps, or Dawkins (or some other it girl), or a message board or a number of other things.
It’s central to the belief, and a means to the end of, “There is no god.”
And there’s nothing wrong with that. Nothing. My issue with you, (and even theists for that matter) is that you seem really uncomfortable owning up to the subjective nature to your beliefs. My impression has been either you’re ignorant (and once again, I don’t mean that pejoratively) or you’ve become so “devout” you’ve reached “certainty.” You’re not alone. When I try and get you to fess up, I usually get an Abbott & Costello routine.
Czarcasm **Novelty Bubble *just said this:
*
"I’m an atheist, I make no claim that god or gods don’t exist. I see no need for them, they solve no problems and answer no questions. I don’t have a belief which is a world away from claiming a non-existence. Those making the claim have the burden of providing the evidence and that evidence has to credible and rise above the level of mere word play and hearsay. "
While I don’t subscribe to those views, they seem perfectly reasonable to me. I don’t think you’re capable of saying this. (to me anyway)
I’m getting rather tired of your “Abbott & Costello routine” routine, myself. It, like your idea that atheism is all about “There is no god!” is all in your head. If you want to know what I think, ask me, because your current mind-reading shtick sucks dogwater.
That is pretty much what I’ve been saying all along. Why don’t you quit reading over your interpretations of what you think I mean, and actually read the words I wrote?
Might I be that one? Because I do make that claim, very strenuously, for certain definitions of God. Once someone says, “God has infinite knowledge,” I can say, entirely assuredly, “That God cannot exist.” Same for “infinite power.” The claim that God has “infinite power” has no possible validity.
I am completely confident in saying that a God defined with self-contradictory qualities does not exist.
Well said.
That is your witness of the day…
Be fair, dude. If I’ve misunderstood you, I apologize. (Really) I haven’t been around in a couple years and you might not remember me, but I remember you. And what I remember—right or wrong----is that you’d rather choke on a ham sandwich than admit your beliefs are just that: beliefs.
And you have yet to directly quote any of these supposed beliefs of mine-you only talk about your own projections and interpretations. They don’t exist.
Don’t flatter yourself, Czarcasm. If you’ve refused to admit the subjective nature of your beliefs, and presented them as objective truths once, you’ve done it 10,000 times.
I only occasionally veer in now, and I stopped cataloging your beliefs a long time ago.
Good point. How can I possibly say that a god(not “God”-if you can’t envision more than one possibility that’s your problem, not mine) does or does not exist if the person making the claim that such a deity exists doesn’t tell me said god’s attributes and gives forth with evidence that points towards that particular god?
Does it count still if your ignorance about any particular god’s attributes is willful? Does that matter?
And it seems that this (in the off chance He exists) god has some responsibility to 'make himself known, but what would be your responsibility to seek him out? What’s the division?