Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?

[firedragon]

It is not a claim, it is a belief. Claims can be proven, beliefs cannot be proven.

Im sorry but I have to disagree.

It seems like many of us tend to go by some kind of word understandings, but not from a holistic picture or even understanding of certain words that we use that would depend on the topic.

In theology, the word belief is used as a feeling that is based on confirmed facts. Maybe it is not factual, maybe it is absolutely false, but still the person "believes" it is fact. For example, the Buddha in his time is said to have visited his previous teachers, assaji, koddanja, bhaddiya, wappa, mahanama, and performed a miracle they called something. Dang. I honestly cant remember the name they called it with. Anyway, he supposedly performed a miracle, and they "believed" in him.

So does that mean their belief cannot be proven? Not at all. According to these stories, the Buddha can perform this miracle anytime he wanted. So he can prove it anytime.

Your statement "beliefs cannot be proven" is wrong.

Lets say I am a chef and I say I believe I can cook a mean chicken, I can prove it by doing it. Dont think that in theology people have always been idiots who just believed in something with out any proofs whatsoever. Traditional theological proofs are not miracles or just some random faith claim or preaching of future dangers or rapture or anything like that. This is an uneducated view of theology. Theology traditionally has always been based on evidence. One may not accept that evidence, but that does not mean one could so easily say that "beliefs cannot be proven".

In the modern day and age what has happened is the propaganda is atheistic. And atheistic propaganda has embraced a new strategy where it is all about scientism. So they use scientism as their tool to set an arbitrary yardstick for "evidence". But this is considered dumb by educated philosophers because when discussing theology, one cannot be so illogical enough to get into science. It is unscientific to get into science. Its uneducated. metaphysics cannot be proven by science and it is childish to expect it to. It is illogical to expect it or even to discuss it. This propaganda has erupted in you.

Metaphysics can only be discussed rationally, not scientifically. Only philosophically.

Beliefs can be proven. Very easily.

 

[Trailblazer]

So does that mean their belief cannot be proven? Not at all. According to these stories, the Buddha can perform this miracle anytime he wanted. So he can prove it anytime.

Your statement "beliefs cannot be proven" is wrong.

But how are the stories proof? There are also stories of Jesus performing miracles but how is that proof to anyone except those who allegedly witnessed the miracles?

What I have been saying is that I cannot prove that my beliefs are true to anyone except myself, but maybe that is not true. Maybe I can prove that they are true to some people.

Prove: demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=prove+means

 

[Sheldon]

I was not making a logical argument so there were no premise or conclusions.

All arguments are irrational if they don't adhere to the principles of logic.

You can choose to ignore the fact your arguments are irrational of course, but you can't just opt out of logic, that's not how it works.

 

[Sheldon]

It's true that religion would be more convincing to nonbelievers if there were not so many religions with different beliefs,

Well I can't of course speak for other atheists, but this is not true for me at all.

 

[firedragon]

But how are the stories proof?

You didnt understand what I said. The miracle, is a proof for them.

I dont believe it. But its for them. In the same way, beliefs are not always unprovable.

You missed the whole point.

 

[firedragon]

What I have been saying is that I cannot prove that my beliefs are true to anyone except myself, but maybe that is not true. Maybe I can prove that they are true to some people.

Prove: demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=prove+means

You cannot prove every single belief. I had a school friend who had a very bad accent. He believes he has an accent because he lived with his mom for like 4 months in another country. Thats it. He cannot prove his belief because he cannot speak that accent.

Sigmund Freud speaks of a woman who "believes" there are nails in her hair. Well, she cannot prove her belief.

I didnt say anyone can prove any belief anytime.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

All arguments are irrational if they don't adhere to the principles of logic.

What principles of logic do you adhere to?

 

[Sheldon]

It is not a claim, it is a belief.

They are not mutually exclusive, a belief is the affirmation of a claim.

Claims can be proven, beliefs cannot be proven.

Not all claims can be proven, so you are wrong there. Not all beliefs cannot be proven, so you are wrong there as well.

Seriously, look these words up, and stop trying to use them to ringfence your claims from scrutiny, rather ask yourself why you need to do this absurd tap dance in sophistry and semantics?

If you believe something it's a claim about how you perceive the world, EVIDENCED OR NOT. If you assert that belief in public, that is a claim, whether you can evidence it or not.

I believe the world is not at the centre of the universe. This a belief, it is also a claim, and it can also be well evidenced.

 

[Sheldon]

What you are referring to is not evidence, it is proof. Evidence is not proof.

Correct, and people often use the word proof out of context, it is better used in mathematics and logic. However proof is defined as evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement. So again you are using words as if they are mutually exclusive, when they clearly are not.

Just as "burden of proof" is a legal term but also has an epistemological meaning.

 

[Sheldon]

If you expect evidence for a religion to be scientifically verifiable that is an illogical expectation since religion is not science

Well neither is astrology or wizardry, telling us religion is not science does not mean religion gets a pass on evidencing it's claims, that's just bias.

(fallacy of false equivalence).

No, because your claim about religion is pure assumption, you cannot simply assert what something is not, in order to ringfence it from objective scrutiny.

 

[Sheldon]

What principles of logic do you adhere to?

Where did I claim that?

I didn't invent the principles of logic, what I claim or believe either does or does not adhere to those principles. If what I believe adheres to these principles then it is more likely to be correct. And that is how I'd prefer to reason, but that doesn't mean I magically am always rational, nor have I claimed that.

 

[firedragon]

Well neither is astrology or wizardry, telling us religion is not science does not mean religion gets a pass on evidencing it's claims, that's just bias.

Actually, that only shows your lack of education on the subject you are trying to discuss. This is not bias, it is just fact.

Metaphysics cannot be expected to be proven scientifically in a lab. It is philosophically a nonsensical necessity. Though this is a very famous meme used by evangelical type atheists, it is nonsensical. Illogical.

 

[firedragon]

Where did I claim that?

I didn't invent the principles of logic, what I claim or believe either does or does not adhere to those principles. If what I believe adheres to these principles then it is more likely to be correct. And that is how I'd prefer to reason, but that doesn't mean I magically am always rational, nor have I claimed that.

Err. What claim did I say you make? I just asked you what principles of logic you adhere to because you spoke of "principles of logic".

I didnt say "you invented principles of logic".

So I will ask the question again, differently.

What axioms of logic do you adhere to?

 

[Trailblazer]

If you believe something its a claim about how you perceive the world, EVIDENCED OR NOT

It is only a claim if I say that something is true or is a fact. It is not a claim if I say I believe it is true.

Say: utter words so as to convey information, an opinion, a feeling or intention, or an instruction.
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=say+means

Claim: to say that something is true or is a fact, although you cannot prove it and other people might not believe it: claim

Belief:
1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"

2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"
https://www.google.com/search

Belief:
the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true:
His belief in God gave him hope during difficult times.
Recent scandals have shaken many people's belief in (= caused people to have doubts about) politicians.
belief

 

[Sheldon]

Actually, that only shows your lack of education on the subject you are trying to discuss. This is not bias, it is just fact.

Ah, another of the bare unevidenced claims theists love to reel off.

It appears you don't know what the word fact means, maybe learn that and you can offer something of value? maybe....

 

[Sheldon]

Metaphysics cannot be expected to be proven scientifically in a lab.

Straw man fallacy...

Though it might be a an idea if you learned to think an argument through before you make it.

Unicorns, leprechauns, mermaids, in fact all non existent or fictional things "cannot be expected to be proven scientifically in a lab."

 

[Sheldon]

Where did I claim that?

I didn't say you'd claimed that, I asked a question.

I just asked you what principles of logic you adhere to because you spoke of "principles of logic".

And I answered you.

I didnt say "you invented principles of logic".

I didn't say you had?

So I will ask the question again, differently.

What axioms of logic do you adhere to?

Same answer as above?

 

[Sheldon]

It is only a claim if I say that something is true or is a fact. It is not a claim if I say I believe it is true.

Yes it is, and I'm done explaining this every time now.

A belief is the affirmation of a claim, it is something one claims is true. When one asserts this belief publicly one is making the claim publicly. the lack of proof or evidence is irrelevant.

Again, I believe the world is not flat. This is a belief, it is also a claim, and it can also be well evidenced.

 

[firedragon]

Ah, another of the bare unevidenced claims theists love to reel off.

It appears you don't know what the word fact means, maybe learn that and you can offer something of value? maybe....

See, what is the un-evidenced claim? What do you mean "un-evidenced"? Lol.

If you think ad hominem is great come back when you have no humility to clarify what you dont understand, its just character, not valid.

 

[firedragon]

Straw man fallacy...

So when someone says "metaphysics is not scientifically proven in a lab", that's a strawman fallacy? Maybe you should study what strawman fallacy is.

And I answered you.

No you didnt. I asked what logical axioms you adhere to. Your reply is "And I answered you". I asked because it was you who brought in "principles of Logic" into conversation. I think you just dont know anything about principles of logic.

How about the "principle of sufficient reason"? Its PSR, and is a principle or an axiom. At least now that I have spelled it out, is there any possibility at all that rather than trying your levels best to insult people, just answer this question? Do you at least adhere to PSR as an axiom in a logical discourse?