100% lack of evidence to God

[muhammad_isa]

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).

My point entirely..
Time is not defined, other than how it relates to motion.
..and then, of course, we find that time is not an absolute phenomena, as the measurement of it depends on a frame of reference.

 

[Audie]

It was not the Kalam Cosmo. Thats pretty clear.

It is a version of it

 

[firedragon]

It is a version of it

No it's not.

 

[Polymath257]

My point entirely..
Time is not defined, other than how it relates to motion.
..and then, of course, we find that time is not an absolute phenomena, as the measurement of it depends on a frame of reference.

But the same is true for *all* physical things. For example, it is also true of space: we define distance via our methods of measuring it. That also depends on a frame of reference.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Are you saying that time has been eternal into the past?
BTW welcome to the forum.

I'm saying existence isn't evidence of anything. I would add "existence" isn't a thing at all except as concept inside our minds. It is a label we give for the idea that there are things we find in reality; those things 'exist'. Existence doesn't exist except in the same way tall exists.

(Thanks for the welcome.)

 

[F1fan]

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 would be a few because the vast majority of atheists just listen to the claims made by theists, and then find the lack of evidence for these fantastic claims to be adequate.

I understand that lack of evidence can prove the non-existence of something. Like a PCR test for COVID 19. Its just an example.

Now for a COVID 19 test, there is a test called PCR. It is an very well defined test that is based on elimination. You eliminate the probability of having the virus infection. So that's a lack of evidence it exists in you. But this has been developed because people know the virus, it has been identified and tested by scientists, and they have developed a specific test that would eliminate it.

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?

Bad analogy since the Covid virus actually exists and is well defined. The test can determine if that material is absent from a sample.

Ay best a theist can claim "God exists in this box if there is a kitten in it". We can look in the box and see if there's a kitten. If there is, this proves the theists claim at a superficial basis, but still does not demonstrate any God actually exists. Theists need to define their Gods, and then propose a test that can offer reliable result. They haven't yet. Even citing miracles doesn't work because there are still many would-be miracles, like a child dying from cancer, that aren't delivered.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I think that reasonable people can have different ideas about what should constitute "evidence," but IMO, if a person sets the bar low enough to say that there's evidence for God, they should also acknowledge that there's evidence against God that clears the same bar.

 

[Audie]

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 religiousane 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.

So anecdotes are evidence for god.
Terrif. So theres also,evidence for alien abduction, nessie, live toads in million yr old
livevtoads in rocks, astrology!
Coz anecdotes
Kalam cosmo is notbevidence of the superntural.

Nor is blaming an audience that isnt into being conned.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

I understand that lack of evidence can prove the non-existence of something. Like a PCR test for COVID 19. Its just an example.

Now for a COVID 19 test, there is a test called PCR. It is an very well defined test that is based on elimination. You eliminate the probability of having the virus infection. So that's a lack of evidence it exists in you. But this has been developed because people know the virus, it has been identified and tested by scientists, and they have developed a specific test that would eliminate it.

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'd say there is a lack of conclusive physical evidence.
I test this by allowing those that believe God exist to present any such evidence and or to provide a convincing argument based on such evidence.

 

[firedragon]

I'd say there is a lack of conclusive physical evidence.
I test this by allowing those that believe God exist to present any such evidence and or to provide a convincing argument based on such evidence.

Thats the burden of proof fallacy.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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).

Do you believe that the universe originated with the Big Bang, and proceeded from a singularity roughly 13.8 billion years ago? And that rather than occurring in an already existing time and space, the universe itself initiated time and space, apparently from nothing?

 

[Kooky]

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?

A simple question: "What would the existence of the Abrahamic God actually add to existing explanations that do not necessitate or postulate the existence of a divine being?"

As far as I can tell, adding the Abrahamic God almost never increases the explanatory power of any particular explanation, it merely moralizes and politicizes it and puts it in opposition to any possible alternate explanatory frameworks.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

I understand that lack of evidence can prove the non-existence of something. Like a PCR test for COVID 19. Its just an example.

Now for a COVID 19 test, there is a test called PCR. It is an very well defined test that is based on elimination. You eliminate the probability of having the virus infection. So that's a lack of evidence it exists in you. But this has been developed because people know the virus, it has been identified and tested by scientists, and they have developed a specific test that would eliminate it.

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?

Atheists on forums proclaiming "no evidence!" is enough evidence for me, who never visits NoPinkUnicorns Forums.

 

[firedragon]

A simple question: "What would the existence of the Abrahamic God actually add to existing explanations that do not necessitate or postulate the existence of a divine being?"

As far as I can tell, adding the Abrahamic God almost never increases the explanatory power of any particular explanation, it merely moralizes and politicizes it and puts it in opposition to any possible alternate explanatory frameworks.

Im deeply sorry Kooky. Please open a new thread for this topic. It maybe interesting.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Atheists on forums proclaiming "no evidence!" is enough evidence for me, who never visits NoPinkUnicorns Forums.

I take it that you haven't realized yet that non-religious people who you assume are complaining about gods are actually complaining about theists.

And the day I hear about Pink Unicorn believers tormenting gay people to the point of suicide, you can be sure you'll hear me complaining about them just as loudly as I complain about you.

The fact that - IMO - theistic beliefs are absurd doesn't mean that they have no impact on the world.

 

[Twilight Hue]

..... I would add "existence" isn't a thing at all except as concept inside our minds. It is a label we give for the idea that there are things we find in reality; those things 'exist'. Existence doesn't exist except in the same way tall exists.

(Thanks for the welcome.)

There's existence. Just that existence isn't a permanent phenomenon as it relates to form.

What's here today can be gone tomorrow.

 

[Kooky]

Im deeply sorry Kooky. Please open a new thread for this topic. It maybe interesting.

What would you feel sorry for? That I answered the question you posed in your original post?

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your question.

 

[Yazata]

How about 'I am unaware of any evidence that I would find convincing in any other context'.

Sure, I don't object to that. Of course if we are talking about purported transcendental realities, we might encounter contextual problems. The standards that we use to address simple questions about physical existence might not be entirely applicable.

My point in the previous post was merely that the atheist apologetic that 'There is no evidence!' is demonstrably false.

The very different proposition 'I'm unaware of any evidence that I find convincing' doesn't seem to require justiication. If somebody said it to me, I'd just assume they are telling the truth about what they think.

But most atheists are preachers, evangelists deep down. Even if they back away from a flat 'There is no evidence!', they usually seem to adopt this one; 'There is no evidence that you or anyone should find convincing.' (Which is a long ways from RF's always-popular 'I simply lack belief, hence I have no burden of proof'.)

The validity of the proposed evidence is in question.

Definitely. Or at least how convincing we find the evidence to be. I'm not totally convinced that an objective standard exists for what is and isn't "valid evidence". It's doubly problematic when we are talking about purported transcendental realities.

I'm reasonably confident that I can determine whether or not there are scissors in my drawer. If I open the drawer and see my scissors, I feel justified in saying that's where my scissors are. If I don't see the scissors, I conclude that they aren't in my drawer.

But how would those kind of common-sense methods work with a hypothetical Source of reality itself? Many religious people seem to think that reality itself is convincing evidence for whatever the Source of reality might hypothetically be. I'm not entirely convinced that they are wrong.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

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.

I understand that lack of evidence can prove the non-existence of something. Like a PCR test for COVID 19. Its just an example.

Now for a COVID 19 test, there is a test called PCR. It is an very well defined test that is based on elimination. You eliminate the probability of having the virus infection. So that's a lack of evidence it exists in you. But this has been developed because people know the virus, it has been identified and tested by scientists, and they have developed a specific test that would eliminate it.

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 think we can say, there is lack of evidence of divinity.
The Messengers to me are evidence. Holy scriptures are a evidence.
So, others may not see them as evidence.
But how do we know who is right here?

so, I would say, just because the atheists do not see any evidence of God, it does not necessarily mean, there is no evidence for God. There could be, there are evidence but they don't recognize them.
It is just not possible to prove to others there are evidences, just as it is not possible to prove to others their are no evidences. It is too complex to prove or disprove.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Im deeply sorry Kooky. Please open a new thread for this topic. It maybe interesting.

FWIW, he does touch on another perspective on evidence that's relevant to the thread:

We all approach the world through mental models. One way of looking at "evidence for God" would be to ask what facts might be out there that:

- create a problem for a godless mental model of the universe, and
- don't create a problem (or at least creates less of a problem) for a mental model that includes a god.

By that perspective on evidence, I woild say that there is no evidence for God.