100% lack of evidence to God

[ppp]

It is just not possible to prove to others there are evidences

Then it is not evidence. Evidence is something that is presented that supports your contention.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

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'.)

No, it isn't. There is still no burden of proof on anyone who doesn't care about the end-goal of your assertions/claims. Think of it this way - if you make a claim that you are interested in getting me on-board with, and that I am unsure the veracity of, am I beholden to wholesale accept any evidence that you bring to the table? Or is it within your purview and range of desires to make sure that the evidence is such that it is compelling to your target audience?

I tell my 8 year old this sort of thing all the time. He wants his Nintendo Switch from upstairs in his room... so he asks me to go get it. I tell him, point blank: "I don't care whether or not you have your Switch... YOU do, so if you want it, you are going to have to do the work, and take the time to go get it." But take heart! Even he still has problems with this concept... so if you have a few years to go before being an adult, then there is yet still time! Oh... hold on... oh, yes, I suppose I forgot. Terribly sorry.

 

[Nakosis]

Thats the burden of proof fallacy.

Well my point was that I wouldn't argue there is a 100% lack of evidence.
Just a lack of evidence that would appease my skepticism.
God is just one of many ideas I'm skeptic about.

 

[firedragon]

Well my point was that I wouldn't argue there is a 100% lack of evidence.
Just a lack of evidence that would appease my skepticism.
God is just one of many ideas I'm skeptic about.

Your argument is fine. But the premise in this thread would deem that a Tu Quoque. But in another scenario, you have a valid argument. I understand.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Then it is not evidence. Evidence is something that is presented that supports your contention.

Yes, it can be presented, but some may see it as evidence some don't.
If it is not evidence, why then 5 million people consider it evidence?
If you are saying they are wrong, you need to prove it.

 

[Audie]

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'.)



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.

The claim about
" no evidence" is demonstrably false, in your
opinion. Just an equivocation game, really.

But if anecdotes are called "evidence"
no doubt the record in C. Columbus' logbook
that two sailors sighted a mermaid will count
as evidence for mermaids.
Evidence can be plausible, feasible, or specious. God- evidence clusters to the
right of that last adjective. Along with mermaids.

As for "most" as atheist- evangelists, making up facts is rather typical for claimants of the supernatural.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

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?

It is a mistake to say God does not exist. Atheists should be saying that they are not convinced by the evidence that a God exists. This is my stance. However, I will say that I am 99% confident that no gods exist and I think most atheists mean this when they say I don't believe god exists. There is just no way to show that I know of that a god does not exist.

 

[Audie]

Well my point was that I wouldn't argue there is a 100% lack of evidence.
Just a lack of evidence that would appease my skepticism.
God is just one of many ideas I'm skeptic about.

So simple but our divers atheist bashers and
Philosopher wannabes just HAVE to concoct that into a structure of ornamental
complexity to shame an Ottoman Turk.

 

[firedragon]

It is a mistake to say God does not exist. Atheists should be saying that they are not convinced by the evidence that a God exists. This is my stance. However, I will say that I am 99% confident that no gods exist and I think most atheists mean this when they say I don't believe god exists. There is just no way to show that I know of that a god does not exist.

Reasonable post I think. See, you could say that you dont believe God exists whatsoever. Its still valid for an atheist.

 

[stvdv]

It is relevant. It is the exact same logic. The reasons for denying Santa Claus apply to God too and answers your OP.

Can you prove your claim that the reasons for denying Santa Claus apply to God too and answers your OP.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

First off, I'd say we should sort out the semantics of what we mean by "evidence."

Once that's done, assuming you mean something like "facts that suggest God exists," we should ask ourselves something:

If God did not exist, could those facts be as we see them?

If the answer is "yes," then those facts aren't evidence for God.

As for your "messengers" and scriptures... there are plenty of religions in the world that have prophets that were purportedly sent by various gods and scriptures that were purportedly dictated by various gods, and they're mutually exclusive enough that they can't all be true.

So let's ask ourselves that question: if God did not exist, could we see "messengers" and scriptures? To me, the answer is an almost-obvious "yes," so this tells me that they aren't evidence for God.

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.

I think it's useful to remember the larger context of religion.

Generally, the claim that a god exist comes as part of an inter-related web of claims: claims that their belief in their god(s) is justified, and claims that - if true - would be rational justification for belief.

So yes: a fact can be true without humans realizing it, and a person can coincidentally hold a true belief without justification. This generally doesn't serve as any sort of refuge for theists, IMO, since it seems to me that having beliefs that are completely unjustified but just coincidentally true would be just as much of a problem for them as having beliefs that are false.

... and it seems a bit disingenuous for someone in a proselytizing (or "pioneering," to use the Baha'i jargon) religion, who would happily tell any prospective convert how rational and justified their religion is, to retreat to some version of "oh, well... what is evidence really?" when challenged.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

First off, I'd say we should sort out the semantics of what we mean by "evidence."

Once that's done, assuming you mean something like "facts that suggest God exists," we should ask ourselves something:

If God did not exist, could those facts be as we see them?

If the answer is "yes," then those facts aren't evidence for God.

As for your "messengers" and scriptures... there are plenty of religions in the world that have prophets that were purportedly sent by various gods and scriptures that were purportedly dictated by various gods, and they're mutually exclusive enough that they can't all be true.

So let's ask ourselves that question: if God did not exist, could we see "messengers" and scriptures? To me, the answer is an almost-obvious "yes," so this tells me that they aren't evidence for God.


I think it's useful to remember the larger context of religion.

Generally, the claim that a god exist comes as part of an inter-related web of claims: claims that their belief in their god(s) is justified, and claims that - if true - would be rational justification for belief.

So yes: a fact can be true without humans realizing it, and a person can coincidentally hold a true belief without justification. This generally doesn't serve as any sort of refuge for theists, IMO, since it seems to me that having beliefs that are completely unjustified but just coincidentally true would be just as much of a problem for them as having beliefs that are false.

... and it seems a bit disingenuous for someone in a proselytizing (or "pioneering," to use the Baha'i jargon) religion, who would happily tell any prospective convert how rational and justified their religion is, to retreat to some version of "oh, well... what is evidence really?" when challenged.

If something is evidence to some millions of people and is not evidence to some millions of people then, is that evidence or not?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, it can be presented, but some may see it as evidence some don't.
If it is not evidence, why then 5 million people consider it evidence?
If you are saying they are wrong, you need to prove it.

Do you realize that more than 6 million Americans (2% of ~330 million) believe the Earth is flat?

Only Two-Thirds Of American Millennials Believe The Earth Is Round

... and that's just one country.

I'd say it's completely plausible to have 5 million people following pretty much any foolish, irrational proposition, so saying that your religion has only 5 million followers isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If something is evidence to some millions of people and is not evidence to some millions of people then, is that evidence or not?

The number of people is irrelevant.

• Why do they accept it as evidence?
• Is their reasoning rational?
• Do they apply their standard consistently?

 

[ppp]

Yes, it can be presented, but some may see it as evidence some don't.
If it is not evidence, why then 5 million people consider it evidence?
If you are saying they are wrong, you need to prove it.

Do you think that just because 5 million people believe a thing, that there is necessarily a sound logical chain of demonstrable propositions between reality and conclusion?

This is not a rhetorical question. I want to know.

It seems to me that the world is rife with people in groups of 5 million or more that believe false (or at least not true) things based on poor standards of evidence. Astrology. Homeopathy. That it is a good idea to draw to an inside straight. That women owe them sex.

What do you think?

 

[PureX]

It is a mistake to say God does not exist. Atheists should be saying that they are not convinced by the evidence that a God exists. This is my stance. However, I will say that I am 99% confident that no gods exist and I think most atheists mean this when they say I don't believe god exists. There is just no way to show that I know of that a god does not exist.

Interestingly, your 99% certainty is exactly as relevant as the theist's 99% certainty. And neither is relevant, at all, to the other.

The point being that degrees of surety ("I believe ...") have no bearing whatever on the actual question at hand: the nature and existence of the mystery we refer to as "God".

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Do you think that just because 5 million people believe a thing, that there is necessarily a sound logical chain of demonstrable propositions between reality and conclusion?

This is not a rhetorical question. I want to know.

It seems to me that the world is rife with people in groups of 5 million or more that believe false (or at least not true) things based on poor standards of evidence. Astrology. Homeopathy. That it is a good idea to draw to an inside straight. That women owe them sex.

What do you think?

There are somethings that are evidence to others and not evidence to some others. Simple as that. there could always be misunderstandings.
Each person can only decide for himself. If you do not see an evidence I take that as a sincere claim. You really do not see any evidence for God. If I see evidence, it is my sincere report. I am just reporting what I perceive.
You would see my perception as delusion, and I just think you do not have all the information, and that's why you do not see what I see.

 

[PureX]

Evidence is not defined by one's acceptance of it. Which is almost ALWAYS the criteria being applied in these discussions. In fact, many here will only accept PROOF as being valid as evidence. It's absurd!

Until we are willing to understand and accept that we are not the determiners of what is and is not evidence, most of these discussions are just going to go around in circles.

 

[ppp]

There are somethings that are evidence to others and not evidence to some others. Simple as that. there could always be misunderstandings.
Each person can only decide for himself. If you do not see an evidence I take that as a sincere claim. You really do not see any evidence for God. If I see evidence, it is my sincere report. I am just reporting what I perceive.
You would see my perception as delusion, and I just think you do not have all the information, and that's why you do not see what I see.

Do you think that just because 5 million people believe a thing, that there is necessarily a sound logical chain of demonstrable propositions between reality and conclusion?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

It's not a claim.
It's an observation.

Nobody ever presented me with a valid test.
Nobody ever even presented me with something testable.
So how could there even be a test, when there is nothing to test?


Wonna give it a shot?

There is a Test. It is the Messenger given of God.

It maybe that many have decided that is not a good or accurate test.

Regards Tony