100% lack of evidence to God

[firedragon]

Existence is evidence for God.

In order for anything to exist, something must be eternal.

I understand this argument Kyle Watt. Some people do Phd thesis's on this very argument. But its just not relevant to this thread. Your prerogative to make it though. And you can ignore my comment if you wish.

Hope you understand.

 

[Brian2]

Simple minded response to a complicated observation. Try thinking before posting.

Welcome to the forum. I hope you are thinking before posting.

 

[Audie]

In other words, not at all.

But too subtle for a broader audience.

 

[KW]

To 'come from' requires the existence of time. So there is no way to 'come from non-existence'. There is simply existence or not.



I disagree. Even if the whole collection has always existed, no individual thing needs to have always existed. And there is no reason to think the collection has always existed.



No, it is an argument for God, not evidence of God. And, frankly, it is a rather poor argument because it assumes many things not proven (that it is impossible for time to be finite into the past, for example).

Time is a unit of measurement. Nothing has been shown to exist spontaneously.

It is evidence, not proof. Evidence need not be conclusive.

You have zero evidence that existence can be the result of non existence.

 

[firedragon]

The fact you failed to respond to @TagliatelliMonster and the well reasoned and clear explanation answering your question, which is a total lack of understanding about how evidence works and atheism in general, shows either a lack of integrity or a lack of desire to comprehend something so easily understood.

It is always and individual's choice to stumble through life with an ignorance is bliss attitude. But it certainly doesn't show a level of willingness to understand your apparently deep seated questions. Or a level of intellectual honesty common to those who really want to understand views different than their own.

Hi. Whats the argument?

 

[KW]

I understand this argument Kyle Watt. Some people do Phd thesis's on this very argument. But its just not relevant to this thread. Your prerogative to make it though. And you can ignore my comment if you wish.

Hope you understand.

Give me an example of a a point relevant to this discussion.

 

[Polymath257]

Time is a unit of measurement. Nothing has been shown to exist spontaneously.

Look into quantum mechanics. And no, time is not the unit of measurement. Seconds are the unit of measurement. Time is what it being measured.

It is evidence, not proof. Evidence need not be conclusive.

Again, it is not evidence. It is an argument. An argument is not, in and of itself, evidence.

You have zero evidence that existence can be the result of non existence.

To be a 'result' implies causality. I don't believe that existence is caused. And that is supported by what we know of quantum mechanics.

 

[Audie]

To 'come from' requires the existence of time. So there is no way to 'come from non-existence'. There is simply existence or not.



I disagree. Even if the whole collection has always existed, no individual thing needs to have always existed. And there is no reason to think the collection has always existed.



No, it is an argument for God, not evidence of God. And, frankly, it is a rather poor argument because it assumes many things not proven (that it is impossible for time to be finite into the past, for example).

Its just kalam cosmo trying lurch back
to life like some shameful electrified
corpse.

 

[firedragon]

Give me an example of a a point relevant to this discussion.

The point of the OP.

 

[KW]

The point of the OP.

That's not an example.

I think it is relevant even though I' m not directly answering your question.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I have noted a few atheists make the claim that God does not exist because there is a 100% lack of evidence. Its a very famous atheistic apologetic shared by many.

There's all kinds of evidence, obviously... it's just that none of it is good enough. Or, should I say, none of it is as good as even the most trivial piece of evidence for something that can be demonstrated to anyone/everyone with relative ease. Like "air", for example. Theists used to use that one because it is/was something you can't see. But one might, for example, blow up a balloon, and then deflate it, to demonstrate that something was in that balloon, filling it up. And just that alone is thousands of times over better evidence for the concept of air than anything that has been presented as evidence for a god.

There's your actual hurdle - so don't just argue against the low hanging fruit of "some atheists say zero evidence." That doesn't matter. What matters in this discourse is that you provide some compelling evidence. If all I had to defend the notion "air exists" was word salad and a bunch of attempts at brandishing convoluted "logic", you would likely remain unconvinced, or be suspicious of my motives... and for good reason!

So I would like to ask the atheists who use this argument about theism and God. What is the test you have developed to do this elimination?

I don't need evidence against to simply disbelieve because of lack of evidence for. It's the exact same reason I don't believe in unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, or big foot. Once those things are presented with a demonstration of how their existence is determinable within our shared reality, then there will be warrant to believe. Not until then however.

 

[firedragon]

Its just kalam cosmo trying lurch back

It was not the Kalam Cosmo. Thats pretty clear.

 

[firedragon]

That's not an example.

Yes its not an example. Its the real topic of this thread.

There is no need to get offended. But you will see how many people will respond to you with a lot of posts that will dismiss your point (which is a very valid argument) with no substance, with a lot of assumptions and derail the thread completely.

Just watch.

 

[Yazata]

I have noted a few atheists make the claim that God does not exist because there is a 100% lack of evidence. Its a very famous atheistic apologetic shared by many.

It's also false. There's far more evidence for the truth of religious propositions than there is for black holes, the big bang or Higgs boson. There's historical accounts of miracles, there's probably millions of personal religious experiences of all kinds, there are the famous cosmological arguments.

So what the atheist apologetic really amounts to is that there's no evidence that they are willing to accept. And that runs the risk of being kind of circular, since almost by definition they are a-priori unwilling to accept any evidence for categories of being whose reality they deny.

That being said, obviously many atheists find the religious evidences unconvincing for a whole variety of reasons, many of them very good reasons. That's certainly legitimate and justifiable. I happen to agree with them most of the time.

But in that case, it would probably be more accurate to say 'I'm unaware of any evidence that I find convincing' rather than the much stronger and demonstrably false proposition that no evidence exists.

 

[muhammad_isa]

And no, time is not the unit of measurement. Seconds are the unit of measurement. Time is what it being measured.

..but how is scientific time defined?
In terms of space/motion .. no?

 

[Polymath257]

..but how is scientific time defined?
In terms of space/motion .. no?

Motion, not just space. Motion is change of location over time. So that gives a way to measure time.

All physical things are defined operationally: how do we measure them. In the case of time, we usually use some sort of regular motion (although not always).

 

[wandering peacefully]

Hi. Whats the argument?

What difference does it make? You have never shown any ability to understand it. Others have clearly expressed the argument many times and you still don't get it. I have better things to do. Just pointing out your decision to continue asking questions about ideas you have zero desire to comprehend or accept.

 

[KW]

Yes its not an example. Its the real topic of this thread.

There is no need to get offended. But you will see how many people will respond to you with a lot of posts that will dismiss your point (which is a very valid argument) with no substance, with a lot of assumptions and derail the thread completely.

Just watch.

OK
Trying to keep the thread on point. I get it now.

 

[firedragon]

What difference does it make? You have never shown any ability to understand it. Others have clearly expressed the argument many times and you still don't get it. I have better things to do. Just pointing out your decision to continue asking questions about ideas you have zero desire to comprehend or accept.

Thanks.

 

[Polymath257]

It's also false. There's far more evidence for the truth of religious propositions than there is for black holes, the big bang or Higgs boson. There's historical accounts of miracles, there's probably millions of personal religious experiences of all kinds, there are the famous cosmological arguments.

So what the atheist apologetic really amounts to is that there's no evidence that they are willing to accept. And that runs the risk of being kind of circular, since almost by definition they are a-priori unwilling to accept any evidence for categories of being whose reality they deny.

That being said, obviously many atheists find the religious evidences unconvincing for a whole variety of reasons, many of them very good reasons. That's certainly legitimate and justifiable. I happen to agree with them most of the time.

But in that case, it would probably be more accurate to say 'I'm unaware of any evidence that I find convincing' rather than the much stronger and demonstrably false proposition that no evidence exists.

How about 'I am unaware of any evidence that I would find convincing in any other context'. The validity of the proposed evidence is in question. Were there actually miracles, or was there just a misinterpretation of something ordinary? How reliable were the witnesses?

In any historical writing, we need to understand the motives of those who wrote, the context in which the writing happened, and why the writing was copied to be distributed. Other writings about the same and similar evients need to be analyzed and compared.

So, the issue is the quality of the evidence for deities. Given the contradictory nature of the writings, we would naturally question the validity of them in any other context.