100% lack of evidence to God

[firedragon]

The thing is that evidence lies in the realm of rational examinations of reality and drawing conclusions through logical argumentation of deduction and induction.

In this case, for you, reality is what you can see and touch? You seem to have an a posteriori epistemology as an intent, but actually you are making an a priori foundation.

 

[rational experiences]

The human aware biology everyone first.

A theist a human said Jesus an image in the cloud can never die. The image is of a man hu man. Image. Magic. I the mage.. a man is magical as his image appeared in the clouds is who argues science.

Today thinks he is a scientist and proves he isn't.

 

[ppp]

In this case, for you, reality is what you can see and touch? You seem to have an a posteriori epistemology as an intent, but actually you are making an a priori foundation.

Nah. I am not a hard solipsist. Reality is whatever reality is, irrespective of me. The things I can know (to whatever degree) about reality are my mental state, the things I can interact with, and the logical deductions and inferences I can make.

Of course, I could be entirely wrong and I could be the author of all that I experience, and that is as far as reality goes. Ew.

 

[firedragon]

Nah. I am not a hard solipsist.

I did not even refer to solipsism. Not even close. But that's fine if you are expressing yourself.

The things I can know (to whatever degree) about reality are my mental state, the things I can interact with, and the logical deductions and inferences I can make.

Rationalist?

 

[Ella S.]

I dont intend to prove God exists as you can see so these statements about poor evidence etc etc etc is fine as a belief for you. The point I am making is about a hard claim made in the OP.

I suspect that the claim made in the OP is a misunderstanding of a position similar to the positions I described in my reply.

 

[ppp]

I did not even refer to solipsism. Not even close. But that's fine if you are expressing yourself.

Hmm. Maybe I am using the wrong term. You seemed to suggest that for me, reality is defined by my experience. If that isn't solipsism, then whatever that is.

Rationalist?

In philosophy, rationalism is the epistemological view that "regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge" or "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification". More formally, rationalism is defined as a methodology or a theory "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive".

I had to look rationalism up. I don't think that applies. I did include my mental state, part of which is emotional. As well as things I experience, which is definitely inclusive of the sensory. Is there a different type of rationalism to which you were referring?

 

[Tiberius]

It can? I will say that a lack of evidence can influence people.

Well yeah, if the evidence should be there but it isn't.

I mean, there's a lack of evidence to support the claim that there's a cat on your lap right now, which plays a big part in you believing there is no cat in your lap.

 

[Tiberius]

Okay. So show a test like that as spoken of in the OP.

I can't, for the same reason you can't show me a test that will prove that I can't turn into a fire breathing dragon.

You are coming at it from the wrong point of view. The test should be trying to show that God DOES exist.

The default point of view should not be, "I'll believe it exists until someone proves it doesn't exist." Such a point of view would require us to believe in EVERYTHING until it is disproved. And since many things, such as God, are unfalsifiable, this just doesn't work.

 

[firedragon]

I suspect that the claim made in the OP is a misunderstanding of a position similar to the positions I described in my reply.

See. You may have a different position. If you read the OP, I am specifically speaking to those have that particular position described within it.

 

[Ella S.]

See. You may have a different position. If you read the OP, I am specifically speaking to those have that particular position described within it.

In the OP, you claim that the position you are describing is a "very famous atheist apologetic" but I have never heard any atheist use it.

Can you demonstrate that there are at least three atheists that are making the claim that there is "a 100% lack of evidence for God?" If it is as well-recited as you claim then this should be easy and I rescind my post.

My hypothesis is that every example you might come up with is more similar to one of the positions I described in my reply than your OP. This is a very easy hypothesis to falsify. Simply give me the atheist you were thinking about when you made the OP.

 

[firedragon]

Hmm. Maybe I am using the wrong term. You seemed to suggest that for me, reality is defined by my experience. If that isn't solipsism, then whatever that is.

That is absolutely not what I said.

I had to look rationalism up. I don't think that applies.

Thats exactly what you explained. The contradiction I was pointing out is that while you explained rationalism, you also appealed to empiricism. Its contradicting.

I did include my mental state, part of which is emotional. As well as things I experience, which is definitely inclusive of the sensory. Is there a different type of rationalism to which you were referring?

I understand that you were later referring to your mental state. Everyone has emotions and we do posit it on our own epistemology. But if our thoughts are not organised, we will contradict ourselves due to our necessity. Example: A theist wants to prove God exists no matter what. Thats his aim (as an example). So he could claim he will make rational arguments with reason while also appealing to empiricism without rational faculties. Thats a contradiction. Maybe he does not understand how science works and how reason works. I took the theists example because if I took an atheists example you will get defensive. Might.

This type of argumentation only shows the extreme bias inside one persons mind. Denial. It can go both ways. Theist or atheist.

 

[firedragon]

In the OP, you claim that the position you are describing is a "very famous atheist apologetic" but I have never heard any atheist use it.

Yeah. Lots of people say this. But if you read through this very thread, you will see people claiming the same thing you say you have never heard.

This whole thread was to learn how people respond. And it was borne by atheists who claimed the same thing I say in the OP. If you are not of that position, either you should leave it or seek fundamentals methodologically.

Can you demonstrate that there are at least three atheists that are making the claim that there is "a 100% lack of evidence for God?"

No. I will not quote names. You should refer to my immediate, previous sentence.

 

[firedragon]

I can't, for the same reason you can't show me a test that will prove that I can't turn into a fire breathing dragon.

Very good. So you basically proved the fallacy of the argumentation posited towards the position explained in the OP.

Thank you very much.

 

[Tiberius]

Very good. So you basically proved the fallacy of the argumentation posited towards the position explained in the OP.

Thank you very much.

If there was an atheist who made such a claim, I would agree that their reasoning was flawed.

But as others have said, it is rare that an atheist would actually claim that they have 100% proof that there is no God. I have never said I have 100% proof, and I'm not aware of any atheist who has said it.

And if there is any atheist who claims it, I would bet a large amount of money that their "proof" is logically flawed.

Can you name an atheist who makes such a claim?

 

[Ella S.]

Yeah. Lots of people say this. But if you read through this very thread, you will see people claiming the same thing you say you have never heard.

This whole thread was to learn how people respond. And it was borne by atheists who claimed the same thing I say in the OP. If you are not of that position, either you should leave it or seek fundamentals methodologically.



No. I will not quote names. You should refer to my immediate, previous sentence.

I read through this entire thread twice already and I maintain that I have seen no such thing. I think one of us is misinterpreting something here and I would like to understand what that it is.

 

[Tiberius]

Yeah. Lots of people say this. But if you read through this very thread, you will see people claiming the same thing you say you have never heard.

This whole thread was to learn how people respond. And it was borne by atheists who claimed the same thing I say in the OP. If you are not of that position, either you should leave it or seek fundamentals methodologically.



No. I will not quote names. You should refer to my immediate, previous sentence.

So all you can do is claim that some vague, unnamed atheist has claimed to have proof that there is no God, yet you can provide not a single shred of evidence to back up that claim.

Very well. If you can assert without any reason behind it, I shall reject it precisely because it has no reason behind it.

 

[firedragon]

If there was an atheist who made such a claim, I would agree that their reasoning was flawed.

Great.

But as others have said, it is rare that an atheist would actually claim that they have 100% proof that there is no God.

Well. Thats just a strawman because I never claimed that. Its irrelevant.

Can you name an atheist who makes such a claim?

You are making a strawman. Please read the OP again.

 

[firedragon]

I read through this entire thread twice already and I maintain that I have seen no such thing. I think one of us is misinterpreting something here and I would like to understand what that it is.

In this very thread, there are atheists who claim what I explained. If you didnt understand what I said, its alright. I will explain because you are polite.

There are some atheists who claim there is no God because there is no evidence for God. Its the position that, lack of evidence is evidence for absence. Many atheists do that. Its a fallacious position. That is why, in order to make that kind of hard claim one has to develop an empirical testing methodology that eliminates God as a tested and proven fact in nature or a testable hypothesis or what ever their intellectual faculties allow.

If they do not have that, its an absolutely fallacious argument.

Thats the whole point.

 

[firedragon]

So all you can do is claim that some vague, unnamed atheist has claimed to have proof that there is no God, yet you can provide not a single shred of evidence to back up that claim.

Yeah. But you still made up a strawman.

 

[ppp]

That is absolutely not what I said.

Hmmm.

Thats exactly what you explained. The contradiction I was pointing out is that while you explained rationalism, you also appealed to empiricism. Its contradicting.

Mmmm.

I understand that you were later referring to your mental state. Everyone has emotions and we do posit it on our own epistemology. But if our thoughts are not organised, we will contradict ourselves due to our necessity. Example: A theist wants to prove God exists no matter what. Thats his aim (as an example). So he could claim he will make rational arguments with reason while also appealing to empiricism without rational faculties. Thats a contradiction. Maybe he does not understand how science works and how reason works. I took the theists example because if I took an atheists example you will get defensive. Might.

I'm not following you. Instead of appealing to the generic or the hypothetical, perhaps you should just directly point to my two statements that you say are in contradiction with one another. And then explain what you think the contradiction is. It might also be helpful to speak directly and to the point instead of trying to take a shortcut through -isms.

If you don't wish to. That's fine. I understand.