Lack of Evidence

[Sheldon]

Appeal to authority and ad populum fallacies, now repeated by you two times.

How is that bare appeal to numbers, or a bare appeal to authority?

Firstly I cited the research in the link, so it's a not a bare appeal to numbers obviously. And the only context I offered this research was as a rebuttal to your hilarious claim that science contained evidence for a deity. Which of course was offered without any citation, and thus it was an obvious appeal to authority fallacy.

I made no claims about the validity of atheism based on the lack of beliefs of these elite scientists, beyond the obvious fact it roundly refutes your claim. It seems despite multiple explanations of these two pretty simple fallacies you are still struggling to understand them, or is it deliberate?

 

[Sheldon]

Disagree. You claim that there is, "much evidence in science that implies the actions of God." His implied argument is that if that were the case, scientists would be theists as much or more than the general population. But they're not. Au contraire. No fallacy there. The scientists are the authority on what the evidence means, and their relative numbers are what refute you.

He doesn't seem to understand that an argumentum ad populum fallacy is a bare appeal to numbers, since I linked a citation for the research, and offered the obvious context was that his unevidenced appeal to authority fallacy, that scientific evidence existed for a deity, was completely at odds with the much higher level of atheism among scientists, and vastly higher level of atheism among elite scientists, it is not remotely a bare appeal to authority either.

Maybe he will understand these simple fallacies at some point, but I'm dubious. I suspect some of it is wilful of course. It smacks of a playground taunt when someone points out to him that he's using endless logical fallacies, to simply ignore that fact, and then retort "no you are". And even get that wrong...

 

[BilliardsBall]

Disagree. You claim that there is, "much evidence in science that implies the actions of God." His implied argument is that if that were the case, scientists would be theists as much or more than the general population. But they're not. Au contraire. No fallacy there. The scientists are the authority on what the evidence means, and their relative numbers are what refute you.

No, I would say scientists, like lawyers or teachers, have personality tendencies.

I would also say that scientists in both private and public institutions are discouraged from promoting their beliefs in religion in the workplace.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Firstly I made no such claim, I accept conclusions that the method reaches, based on the evidence, so this is yet another of your straw man fallacies. Secondly scientific facts are evidence based, and the method requires all data and conclusions be continuously scrutinised, by things like peer review. Even the most well established scientific facts, evidenced beyond any reasonable doubt, remain tentative and open to revision in the light of new evidence. So no, they are neither appeal to authority or bare appeal to numbers fallacies, which after weeks of explanation you clearly still don't care to understand.

FYI, I note again you didn't address my post or the context at all, quelle surprise. The real hilarity of course is you using another logical fallacy, to try and falsely discredit scientific facts, after making a bare appeal to the authority of science your self.



Care to site any? Or do you think tacking the word science onto your woo woo claim will lend it some gravitas in that rather obvious appeal to authority fallacy?

Your rudeness underscores the deceit of atheism--and by implication, the truth (spoken in supreme love) of Jesus Christ. I want to discuss--you want to argue.

 

[Sheldon]

Your rudeness underscores the deceit of atheism--and by implication, the truth (spoken in supreme love) of Jesus Christ.

So no then you can't offer even one example of any scientific evidence for any deity or anything supernatural. Atheism isn't a claim, so calling it deceitful is as facile as it is absurd.

I want to discuss--you want to argue.

We are in a public debate forum, you may want to look up the word, and you want to just preach unevidenced claims, and then ignore any posts that challenge your endless irrational assertions.

I note again you haven't the integrity to address your false allegation I used a logical fallacy, quelle surprise. Perhaps you think this endless sophistry is polite in a debate forum, but I'm inclined to disagree.

Now once again then, since you claimed there was evidence in science for a deity, please demonstrate some.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So no then you can't offer even one example of any scientific evidence for any deity or anything supernatural..

Scientific evidence is needed to prove something in science..
..surprisingly enough

G-d isn't a physical phenomena .. so what would you expect?
Are you saying that you need to see a miracle in front of your eyes?
You could still claim that it was magic, or you'd been drugged.

 

[Sheldon]

Scientific evidence is needed to prove something in science..
..surprisingly enough

I agree, but then the claim for scientific evidence of a deity wasn't mine, if you'd bothered to read the exchange before leaping in.

There is much evidence in science that implies the actions of God,

G-d isn't a physical phenomena ..

I don't believe you, demonstrate some objective evidence for your claim please.

so what would you expect?

A slew of straw men, and unevidenced assertions, which ironically is what you have produced, again.

Are you saying that you need to see a miracle in front of your eyes?

I don't believe in miracles, do you ever actually read posts?

You could still claim that it was magic, or you'd been drugged.

Why would I need to claim anything at all for not having an explanation, when I know what an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy is?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why would I need to claim anything at all.. ?

A good question..
..because you certainly have many claims about what faith is based on !

eg. irrational .. no objective evidence .. based on bare claims .. no different from fiction etc. etc.

 

[Sheldon]

A good question..
..because you certainly have many claims about what faith is based on !

Do I? care to quote a couple for me?

eg. irrational .. no objective evidence .. based on bare claims .. no different from fiction etc. etc.

Ah another straw man, why am I not surprised. If you have something other than subjective unevidenced claims you're wasting a lot of energy not sharing it. However those are not claims I've made about faith in the generic and facile way you've presented them.

 

[Brian2]

I always find it interesting when theists take even more hardcore anti-theistic positions than the average atheist.

You say that it would be absurd to ask for scientific evidence of God... i.e. that there can be no physical, empirical evidence of God.

This implies that absolutely anything that would be physical, empirical evidence of God if true is all necessarily false, including:

- every miracle claim.
- every "answered" prayer.
- the "revelation" of every "revealed" religion.
- every claim that the form of nature indicates design, or that a creator's "fingerprint" is on the physical universe.

I trust you recognize that most theists don't share your position.

There can be physical evidence but not empirical in the sense that science wants.
None of the things you mention are empirical and are easily dismissed by people who demand empirical evidence..........................by people who don't want to have faith but who end up having faith in other things that aren't proven anyway.

 

[Brian2]

So no then you can't offer even one example of any scientific evidence for any deity or anything supernatural. Atheism isn't a claim, so calling it deceitful is as facile as it is absurd.

A lack of belief in a creator is a belief in the alternative, it all happened by itself. That claim is a statement of faith and there is no evidence for it.
The alternative is that the lack of belief in a creator is just a neutral position on anything unknown, like how the universe and life came to be.
That however does not seem to be your position and even if it was it still means a life lived as if there is no creator.
Whichever way you look at it, atheism is a denial of a creator God.

 

[Sheldon]

There can be physical evidence but not empirical in the sense that science wants.

What physical evidence can you demonstrate, if there is physical evidence then science can examine it. The idea science "wants" anything from god claims seems an odd idea as well.

None of the things you mention are empirical and are easily dismissed by people who demand empirical evidence..........................by people who don't want to have faith but who end up having faith in other things that aren't proven anyway.

Is there anything one could not believe based on faith alone? What things, and what do you mean by prove?

 

[Sheldon]

A lack of belief in a creator is a belief in the alternative, it all happened by itself.

Not necessarily it isn't, I'm an atheist, and my atheism is not a contrary belief or claim, just a lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. I would not hold a contrary belief or make a contrary claim unless the claim had been falsified, and the generic claim a deity exists is unfalsifiable. I must remain agnostic about all unfalsifiable claims, but also disbelieve them.

I've no idea what you mean by "it all happened by itself"? What are you claiming happened by itself?

That claim is a statement of faith and there is no evidence for it.

No it isn't, but you seem to be denigrating faith now, which is irrational given you champion it elsewhere?

The alternative is that the lack of belief in a creator is just a neutral position on anything unknown, like how the universe and life came to be.

One alternative yes, if a god concept is unfalsifiable then I would of course disbelieve it, as I would any unfalsifiable claim, though I would also have to remain agnostic about such claims.

That however does not seem to be your position

I am an atheist as I don't believe in any deity or deities, however I also remain agnostic about all unfalsifiable claims, including any god claims.

and even if it was it still means a life lived as if there is no creator.

Since I am an atheist how else could I live my life?

Whichever way you look at it, atheism is a denial of a creator God.

No it isn't, as I simply don't believe in any deity or deities, though of course other atheists may and some do hold a contrary belief. Atheism however is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, thus it encompasses both my lack of belief, and other's belief that no deity exists. This simple Venn diagram demonstrates it quite elegantly.

 

[Brian2]

What physical evidence can you demonstrate, if there is physical evidence then science can examine it. The idea science "wants" anything from god claims seems an odd idea as well.

I said science wanted empirical evidence, not that it wants anything from god claims.
The physical evidence that there is, is the obvious (to me) intelligence behind the workings of all life forms.

Is there anything one could not believe based on faith alone? What things, and what do you mean by prove?

I think that most, if not all our beliefs need a certain amount of faith to believe them even if it does not present itself as faith to us, they might just seem obvious to us.
"Proven" was no doubt the wrong word, how about things that have not evidence that they are true.
There are many of these things in our lives that we believe because they seem plain to us and might fit in with other things that we accept as true.
The ones I concern myself with because God said in the Bible that He is the one who did them, are how things came to be, into existence, and how life came into dead matter.

 

[Sheldon]

I said science wanted empirical evidence, not that it wants anything from god claims.

You said science wants empirical evidence of god, again this claim seems bizarre, as science is a method, the method has no desires one way or another. Though some theists may want this, and many claim they have it of course.

The physical evidence that there is, is the obvious (to me) intelligence behind the workings of all life forms.

Well that's just another bare claim, not evidence. Pointing at everything and saying god, isn't evidence, I could point and say wizard, it wouldn't be evidence for a wizard.

I think that most, if not all our beliefs need a certain amount of faith to believe them even if it does not present itself as faith to us, they might just seem obvious to us.

Another unevidenced claim I'm afraid, a common one, but nonetheless whenever this claim is subjected to scrutiny it always fails.

"Proven" was no doubt the wrong word, how about things that have not evidence that they are true. There are many of these things in our lives that we believe because they seem plain to us and might fit in with other things that we accept as true.

Another bare claim I'm sorry, perhaps you could evidence it with some examples, outside of theistic beliefs?

The ones I concern myself with because God said in the Bible that He is the one who did them, are how things came to be, into existence, and how life came into dead matter.

Nothing in the bible represents objective evidence of any deity. As for not knowing how life originated, when you claim a belief has validity because there isn't an alternative, this is called an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. We can assert nothing from not knowing, but if you have any objective evidence that a deity exists, or created anything, anything beyond bare claims or god of the gaps polemic, maybe you could present that?

 

[Brian2]

Not necessarily it isn't, I'm an atheist, and my atheism is not a contrary belief or claim, just a lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. I would not hold a contrary belief or make a contrary claim unless the claim had been falsified, and the generic claim a deity exists is unfalsifiable. I must remain agnostic about all unfalsifiable claims, but also disbelieve them.

I've no idea what you mean by "it all happened by itself"? What are you claiming happened by itself?

How are you using the term agnostic?
When you say you disbelieve something, do you mean that believe it is not true?
I did not claim anything happened by itself, that is that claim that many atheists make about the existence of the universe and life.

No it isn't, but you seem to be denigrating faith now, which is irrational given you champion it elsewhere?

I was not denigrating faith, I was just saying that you also have faith in things that have no evidence.

One alternative yes, if a god concept is unfalsifiable then I would of course disbelieve it, as I would any unfalsifiable claim, though I would also have to remain agnostic about such claims.

The Biblical God concept is something that has been shown to be true in history imo.
As such it is not really an unfalsifiable concept and has worked it's way up from a concept to whatever the next step up is. An experience maybe or even a reality to many.

Since I am an atheist how else could I live my life?

Maybe we live our lives as our inner faith meter directs...............but don't ask me what that meter is.

No it isn't, as I simply don't believe in any deity or deities, though of course other atheists may and some do hold a contrary belief. Atheism however is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, thus it encompasses both my lack of belief, and other's belief that no deity exists. This simple Venn diagram demonstrates it quite elegantly.

Thanks for that, I usually see it more simply as you believe or do not believe, but as a believer I know that doubts can take hold and that can get you asking questions as to whether you still believe.
The words atheist and agnostic seem to have different meanings popularly and in strict usage and over the years the meanings seem to have changed.
That's something that Satan would do with those words ay.

 

[Sheldon]

How are you using the term agnostic?

Agnosticism is defined as the belief that nothing is known or can be known about the nature or existence of a deity. So if I am presented with an unfalsifiable concept of a deity I remain agnostic about it, and withhold belief, as I would for any other unfalsifiable claim.

When you say you disbelieve something, do you mean that believe it is not true?

No, if I'd meant that I'd have said that.

I did not claim anything happened by itself, that is that claim that many atheists make about the existence of the universe and life.

I don't believe you, though it is a straw man claim many theists assume atheism must make.

I was not denigrating faith, I was just saying that you also have faith in things that have no evidence.

That depends how you're defining faith, I try to base belief on sufficient objective evidence, thus faith in the way religions have traditionally meant it is not something I use.

The Biblical God concept is something that has been shown to be true in history imo.

How can history demonstrate the existence of a deity?

The words atheist and agnostic seem to have different meanings popularly and in strict usage and over the years the meanings seem to have changed.

Yes, words and language evolve.

That's something that Satan would do with those words ay.

I don't believe in Satan, as I've seen nothing beyond bare claims that such an entity exists.

 

[Brian2]

Agnosticism is defined as the belief that nothing is known or can be known about the nature or existence of a deity. So if I am presented with an unfalsifiable concept of a deity I remain agnostic about it, and withhold belief, as I would for any other unfalsifiable claim.

If the deity tells us things that would be different. The Biblical God has told us things and has given us falsifiable prophecies to show He is real.

I don't believe you, though it is a straw man claim many theists assume atheism must make.

So are you saying that atheism is a sit on the fence type of belief/unbelief that has no opinion about about stuff that is not falsifiable? Maybe that is just your type of atheism.
But even you seem to have opinions about things.
So if the Bible God has falsifiable prophecies does that mean you have an opinion about that God?

How can history demonstrate the existence of a deity?

As I said, the prophecies.

I don't believe in Satan, as I've seen nothing beyond bare claims that such an entity exists.

In this civilisation he remains hidden but in other civilisations I hear his existence is more obvious.

 

[questfortruth]

Fact is there is lack of evidence

If you know everything, including that you exist, then you exist. Because Your existence is part of knowledge.

 

[Sheldon]

If the deity tells us things that would be different. The Biblical God has told us things and has given us falsifiable prophecies to show He is real.

No deity has told me anything, but more importantly I don't believe any deity has told anyone else anything, as no one can demonstrate any objective evidence to support the claim. A prophecy consist of 3 separates claims as far as I can see.

1. That an accurate specific prediction is made that cannot be open to interpretation.
2. That later the prediction unequivocally and definitively occurred exactly as predicted.
3. That this could only have occurred through the intervention of a divine agent.

Even were you to establish undeniable objective evidence for 1 and 2, which I don't believe is usually the case, as they always turn out to be subjective claims. The 3rd claim is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, as one is making an unevidenced assumption based on not having contrary evidence.

So are you saying that atheism is a sit on the fence type of belief/unbelief that has no opinion about about stuff that is not falsifiable?

Not at all what I said. Atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, this definition encompasses all atheists, some are agnostic and some not.

Maybe that is just your type of atheism.

All atheists disbelieve in any deity or deities, but not all stop there.

But even you seem to have opinions about things. So if the Bible God has falsifiable prophecies does that mean you have an opinion about that God?

You are talking about two different claims, firstly the claim that deity exists, which can be unfalsifiable or not, and secondly claims made about that deity. You would have to offer a specific example, and if that claim has been falsified, and I was convinced by the objective evidence, then I would believe the evidence.