Do you KNOW God does not exist?

[Eliab ben Benjamin]

This has nothing to do with theists and evidence. They have evidence for their BELIEF only. Thats from person to person. The sun rising is not a belief, its a fact.

With or without evidence

It is a fact.

As long as beliefs depend on the believer (subjective) it will never be fact/universal.

With or without evidence.

I was wondering...believers can say 100 percent their belief is a FACT. Why cant atheist say the same?

Ah but your supposed Fact of sunrise, is just subjective perception ..

when for a fact we now know the Earth rotates around its own axis,
giving the perception of sunrise and sunset ..

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Here is the problem

Thiest make a "claim" and a "belief" not all claims and beliefs are fact. Just because I make the claim there are ghosts does not mean they exist. What I see Some atheist do is latch onto this claim or belief. Make it "real" in order to debate it (as debating an invisible person), find proof over it, and making their claim based on a claim that they dont believe it.

Example

Thats like giving you a invisible ball. I tell you to open your hand and you look at your empty palm and say "I dont believe it exists" and the theist says the opposite. Both are just beliefs.

However, the claim is first made by the theist. The atheist shouldnt need to get a scientist to proove he is holding nothing. His sense (no weight for example) can tell him no object is in his hand.

Connection

Yet, like belief in God, instead of the atheist going by their sense of what they Know "already" (that one can tell an object is in ones hands based on gravity WITHOUT scientic proof) they rather search for proof outside what they already know. As if imaginary proof will pop up and make the ball visible so they can disprove it. If thats the case, its no longer a claim.

If you used a very good method, it should be repeatable, and then I could use it, because right now, I cannot for the llfe of me know how I would CLAIM to know that some supernatural thingy in heaven DOESN'T exist

Think of film negatives. You dont need to find a expert to know there is a film if you find the negative YOURSELF.

The culture, social nature, motivations, needs, wants, and fear of uncertainty and need for love (all psychological and physiological) are negatives of the film.

If you understand the relationship of how psychology, sociology, physicology, etc works together to create things wanting, needing, the above), you understand why people belief in religion AND how religions develop.

You may understand why certain type of Gods exist. If God is independent of humans, he should have NO type of human trait. People define God. Atheist latch on to this (sorry guys, making a point), make. God "real" to debate it false or find evidence for nothing.

". Do you believe in things that you DON'T have any evidence for?

Yes, I do. I believe it because it helps me live better. I dont need evidence. I accept thst what I consider fact could be false. I also accept that religious belief is also psychological; we need that emotional support.

Finding evidence is time consuming; I dont live THAT long.

What do you MEAN by "fact/universal"? But I agree with you there. If we believe in something for which there is NO evidence, then we can't say that it's a FACT

Fact/universal: What can be seen true no matter who we are and what we believe. Both sides of the world know the sunrise and fall. They know this even though the rising and falling are opposite of each other.

Because some atheists don't go around saying things they actually DON'T know. When some atheists don't know something , they just admit it.. because SOME atheists are intellectually hones

Thats like my saying, I wont say I know the invisible ball doesnt exist (ignoring my ability to sense falsehood) because Im yearning for evidence.

So i will debate and hold on to NOTHING until someone can
proove it is something.

Its one thing if an theist (correction: not athiest) brought up a FACT and the atheist disbelieves it maybe because he is ignorant to it. THAT, I can see a atheist saying "I cant say I dont KNOW cause Im ignorant of the evidence of it."

In some religions, it is a belief. Its not the same.

The theist is bring an atheist a BELIEF and atheist are treating it as if they are bringing facts.
---
I can go on... its ironic to see. I have experienced living belief. It is something I cannot replace AND I know that not a beliefs are true. So, basic psychology (theres your proof) gives me reason to see otherwise.

That means I am not tricked by setting my life to a belief unless I know it comes from ME and not a claim I HOPE is true. My spiritual faith is literal not metaphorical. So, i see things a little different. Im amazed that atheist are doing the same az theist just switched.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Ah but your supposed Fact of sunrise, is just subjective perception ..

when for a fact we now know the Earth rotates around its own axis,
giving the perception of sunrise and sunset ..

Lol you get my point not poung right?

 

[Blastcat]

Here is the problem

Thiest make a "claim" and a "belief" not all claims and beliefs are fact. Just because I make the claim there are ghosts does not mean they exist. What I see Some atheist do is latch onto this claim or belief. Make it "real" in order to debate it (as debating an invisible person), find proof over it, and making their claim based on a claim that they dont believe it.

I think you are over generalizing about atheists.

I never "make it real" in order to debate a god. I always treat the concept of a god as a hypothesis and nothing more. I have never been given any reason to take this god hypothesis as REAL.

The theists make the claim that this god is REAL... they hold that position, not I. My position about god is about the same as Santa Clause. I almost but not quite KNOW that Santa isn't real. It's almost 99.999999999999999999 certain. But being intellectually honest makes me say that EVEN SANTA is at least POSSIBLE. But the PROBABILITY I give to Santa being real is very very very low. I NEVER say that hypotheses with extremely low probability are REAL.

Thats like giving you a invisible ball. I tell you to open your hand and you look at your empty palm and say "I dont believe it exists" and the theist says the opposite. Both are just beliefs.

Yes, there is a belief.
And we know how utterly controversial some theists think the word is. But how about this for a definition of "belief"..
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. Do you accept this definition?

IF SO... then I would BELIEVE that there is no ball in my hand because of OVERWHELMING evidence that there is no ball in my hand. But the important thing to remember is that my belief is conditional on evidence. I only want to believe things that are true. If I cannot prove that the ball in my hand is TRUE.. then I simply can't believe that the ball exists. NOW.. that doesn't MEAN there isn't an invisible ball... but it's just that as far as I can TELL there isn't one. I would be pretty sure that there is no ball. But if I had a panel of expert SCIENTISTS study the matter, I would be even MORE sure... 99.9999999999999 percent sure. I don't believe that humans can know anything absolutely. But we can get REAL CLOSE.

We know all about real balls. We know they have weight and color and texture and other physical properties that we can GO LOOK AT. We can't do that with a god in the hand claim. We can't GO LOOK AT other examples of an invisible god in the hand like we can with a ball.

However, the claim is first made by the theist. The atheist shouldnt need to get a scientist to proove he is holding nothing. His sense (no weight for example) can tell him no object is in his hand.

Ahhhh but gods AREN'T objects or physical with physical properties like a ball. So your analogy fails.
And the REASON you don't really need a scientist to tell you that there is no ball is because YOU ALREADY have plenty of evidence about real balls, and can compare this so called invisible one TO the real balls in the real world. BUT if you really wanted to, a scientist COULD give you plenty of data about the non-existence of the so called invisible ball.. as you said... measure the space where it is supposedly

So, yes, generally speaking we don't NEED a panel of expert scientists in our day to day lives. BUT if someone makes a very strange claim, and we have lots of cash.. we CAN get the experts. And these experts DO have methods to know if something is real or not.

Yet, like belief in God, instead of the atheist going by their sense of what they Know "already" (that one can tell an object is in ones hands based on gravity WITHOUT scientic proof) they rather search for proof outside what they already know. As if imaginary proof will pop up and make the ball visible so they can disprove it. If thats the case, its no longer a claim.

I have NO idea what you imagine I must think. OF COURSE I go by what I already know. That's WHY I'm an atheist. The case theists make for their god is WORSE than your example of an invisible ball. At least we KNOW that balls DO exist, but not invisible ones. With god claims.. we DON'T know that gods exist , and the ONLY thing we have is belief supporting belief that a thing like a god CAN exist in the first place.

But I don't understand your claim that atheists somehow pop this god into existence in order to disprove that it doesn't exist. First of all, we just cant do that. Secondly, most atheists I KNOW never say that god is real. People who say that god is real are the THEISTS. Maybe I misunderstand you , but the way you describe atheists is WEIRD.

Think of film negatives. You dont need to find a expert to know there is a film if you find the negative YOURSELF.

That's right. You don't have to be an expert when you have really good evidence. BUT we all know how we can be deceived, So, it's a good thing to rely on EXPERT OPINIONS. That's why they use experts in court cases. When what is being judged is IMPORTANT.

The culture, social nature, motivations, needs, wants, and fear of uncertainty and need for love (all psychological and physiological) are negatives of the film. If you understand the relationship of how psychology, sociology, physicology, etc works together to create things wanting, needing, the above), you understand why people belief in religion. You may understand why certain type of Gods exist. If God is independent of humans, he should have NO type of human trait. People define God.

All of this MIGHT BE TRUE.. and yet, we can't be CERTAIN that a god DOESN'T exist, these things are NOT evidence that some god doesn't exist. EVEN THOUGH your hypothesis is WAY more convincing than a supernatural invisible god thingy in heaven is real.

My point is that humans don't know ANYTHING with ABSOLUTE certainty. So, to be intellectually honest, we just have to admit that none of us have 100% knowledge of ANYTHING. We don't happen to have all the knowledge in the universe.. or beyond the universe if there is a beyond... we just DON'T.

It's intellectually honest to say that we as humans do not know everything that could possibly be known. And there MIGHT be things that humans will NEVER know. So a little humility here about knowledge.

Atheist latch on to this (sorry guys, making a point), make. God "real" to debate it false or find evidence for nothing.

I NEVER make "god REAL" in order to debate. I MIGHT accept some premise for the sake of the argument, but that doesn't mean that I accept it at all otherwise. ONCE I am out of the debate.. the point I was accepting IN ORDER TO TALK TO THEISTS about their beliefs ISN'T accepted any longer. I might say something like this.. "LETS SAY FOR THE SAKE OF THE ARGUMENT THAT THIS WAS TRUE... even THEN it doesn't make sense ...."

Sometimes, I don't bother prefacing the conditional with LETS SAY FOR THE SAKE OF THE ARGUMENT THAT YOUR NUTTY BELIEF IS TRUE FOR THE MOMENT SO THAT WE CAN INVESTIGATE THE INTERNAL LOGIC FOR A MOMENT"

But this is NOT an acceptance of the belief.
It's just what we have to do in ORDER to talk to these people. But it's NEVER some concession of any kind that their beliefs ARE true.

Yes, I do. I believe it because it helps me live better. I dont need evidence to live. I dont live THAT long.

I wonder what part of your life is it that you DON'T use evidence?
Do you go about your day to day life just believing anything and everything?
Do you go about your day to day life believing in FALSE things?

What METHOD do you use to say that you know something is true or not?

Fact/universal: What can be seen true no matter who we are and what we believe. Both sides of the world know the sunrise and fall. They know this even though the rising and falling are opposite of each other.

As it's been pointed out to you before, but I will repeat it , the sun doesn't actually rise and set. This is an understandable error. But it's an error none the less.
Sometimes, a little SCIENCE DOES help us know what is true and what isn't.
A little EVIDENCE...

It does not exist to claim delief in it. Thats like my saying, I wont say I know the invisible ball doesnt exist (ignoring my ability to sense falsehood) because Im yearning for evidence.

So i will debate and hold on to NOTHING until someone can
proove it is something.

Right. That's the skeptical way. Don't believe as a default in WEIRD claims. If someone wants to sell you an invisible ball, it's right to ask for evidence or better yet, proof.

Its one think if a theist brought up a FACT and the atheist disbelieves it maybe because he is ignorant to it. That, I can see a atheist saying "I cant say I dont KNOW cause Im ignorant of the evidence of it." It is a fact.

Maybe, possibly, there IS a god of some kind. I think it's at least POSSIBLE. However, possible doesn't imply PROBABLE.
And I would ask the theist for HIS EVIDENCE.. if it's there.. I can see it. If it's NOT there.. then it behaves like your invisible ball.. or Santa.. or any other thing we usually say doesn't exist.

If something DOES NOT EXIST, then it CANNOT provide evidence. That's for SURE. ( again, 99.999999999999999 percent sure )

In religion, it is a belief. Its not the same.

In religion, there ARE truth claims. There are claims to KNOWLEDGE of gods.
AND then, there are BELIEFS based on these so called instances of knowledge.

Facts and beliefs about facts are not the same things.

The theist is bring an atheist a belief and atheist are treating it as if they are bringing facts.

Of course not. Atheists don't take religious beliefs as FACTS or they wouldn't BE atheists.. they would BE theists.
---

I can go on... its ironic to see. I have experienced living belief. It is something I cannot replace AND I know that not a beliefs are true. So, basic psychology (theres your proof) gives me reason to see otherwise.

Oh you have some good reasons.. I agree that human psychology explains a LOT about religions.. but. I have a problem with anyone claiming to KNOW that there isn't a god thingy up in heaven. There MIGHT be. The possibility EXISTS, The PROBABILITY is extremely low.

That means I am not tricked by setting my life to a belief unless I know it comes from ME and not a claim I HOPE is true.

Many theists claim to have personal knowledge that their god beliefs are real. You seem to be using the same kind of method to arrive at the conclusion that no god exists. Personal conviction isn't really a very good criteria for knowledge.

My spiritual faith is literal not metaphorical.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

So, i see things a little different. Im amazed that atheist are doing the same az theist just switched.

Well, I see things a little different than YOU do. I think it's ironic that you are using some of the same erroneous methods that some THEISTS use.

What do you call this? Double irony?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What I am saying hopefully in a nut shell. The theist says "I see an invisible man." You look, and knowing that what exists are usually not invisible just some to the naked eye, you are curious. So of course, youd want evidence and such.

In order tondo this, you have to At the Very Least put yourself into the THEIST shoes (make the person real) in order to consider his argument and not just your own. Both theist and atheist (some) have a hard time doing this. The former will never imagine God not existing. That latter will claim God doesnt exist (based on lack of evidence not knowledge).

My position about god is about the same as Santa Clause. I almost but not quite KNOW that Santa isn't real. It's almost 99.999999999999999999 certain.

If there was nothing to begin with, how would there be even a number there? Thats like my saying I have 99.9999999 certainty that nothing exists. Of course we cant know everything. If nothing is there, and someone makes a claim, why take it into consideration if that claim does not add up to what you already trust as reality? Why take the bait?

But the PROBABILITY I give to Santa being real is very very very low. I NEVER say that hypotheses with extremely low probability are REAL.

Why have that 1% factor? Unless you actually believe he could exist rather than the fact he is made up (fantasy)? Why consider it 1% true because the claim it is?

IF SO... then I would BELIEVE that there is no ball in my hand because of OVERWHELMING evidence that there is no ball in my hand. But the important thing to remember is that my belief is conditional on evidence. I only want to believe things that are true. If I cannot prove that the ball in my hand is TRUE.. then I simply can't believe that the ball exists. NOW.. that doesn't MEAN there isn't an invisible ball...

If you went off what you already know (pretending I know general human knowledge of what you know) then there is no 1% factor. You may believe that there could be a 1% chance there is a ball. The FACT is there is not.

But I don't understand your claim that atheists somehow pop this god into existence in order to disprove that it doesn't exist.

Explained above. If you spoke to a theist and he said an invisible man is in front of you, to take his claim into consider, it is appropriate to put yourself in his shoes. Pretending that God does exist to talk about him to a theist.

My point is that humans don't know ANYTHING with ABSOLUTE certainty

Then there is no such thing as facts. I am on a smartphone but there is a 1% loop hole that I am typing on piano and its sending stacatto messages in the air to tap you on the shounder when in press the note C. Is that what you mean?

1. I wonder what part of your life is it that you DON'T use evidence?

2. Do you go about your day to day life just believing anything and everything?

3. Do you go about your day to day life believing in FALSE things?

4. What METHOD do you use to say that you know something is true or not?

1. When my family saw spirits, we treat them just as anyone else. When I saw one I didnt run for evidence. When held down, I was more intrigued that there are spirits (not beliefs). When it comes to spirituality and things how I was raised, I dont question it. If it is true/fact why look into it. There was no supernatural concept on my family. Well, except on holleween.

2. Only if it doesnt harm me, others, and it benefits my life.

3. If you say you cannot be sure 100 percent, nothing is false.
From your point of view, no.

From my view, I dont follow anything false. Thats my morals. Whether it is true, I do not know. I dont question what I know is fact unle well, i like to study it, or it influences myself or others in a bad way.

As it's been pointed out to you before, but I will repeat it , the sun doesn't actually rise and set. This is an understandable error. But it's an error none the less.Sometimes, a little SCIENCE DOES help us know what is true and what isn't.
A little EVIDENCE...

I know it does not. THAT is not my point. All three of you telling me science and were talking about religion. I could have said the moon is not spinning. Were not talking about science.

Right. That's the skeptical way. Don't believe as a default in WEIRD claims. If someone wants to sell you an invisible ball, it's right to ask for evidence or better yet, proof.

Id just be curious of "why" he says he has the invisible ball, how he got to that belief, why he is selling it. I find no reason to ask for evidence.

Oh you have some good reasons.. I agree that human psychology explains a LOT about religions.. but. I have a problem with anyone claiming to KNOW that there isn't a god thingy up in heaven. There MIGHT be. The possibility EXISTS, The PROBABILITY is extremely low.

We only know what we, as humanity, experience in one way or another and observe. We say we know based on these experiences and observations. So, what I say that I know is based on experience, historical knowledge, psychology, and culture. I dont understand what other type of proof atheist need to disprove God. ]

Well, I see things a little different than YOU do. I think it's ironic that you are using some of the same erroneous methods that some THEISTS use.

What do you call this? Double irony?

I dont see how you got this conclusion.

 

[Blastcat]

What I am saying hopefully in a nut shell. The theist says "I see an invisible man." You look, and knowing that what exists are usually not invisible just some to the naked eye, you are curious. So of course, youd want evidence and such.

OF COURSE WE WANT EVIDENCE.

In order tondo this, you have to At the Very Least put yourself into the THEIST shoes (make the person real) in order to consider his argument and not just your own. Both theist and atheist (some) have a hard time doing this. The former will never imagine God not existing. That latter will claim God doesnt exist (based on lack of evidence not knowledge).

I don't at all have to put myself in the theist's shoes. I don't at all EVER pretend along with the theist that his god is real. If his god is real, he will be able to provide evidence that it is real. That's it. I don't have to BE a theist to ask for evidence.

If there was nothing to begin with, how would there be even a number there? Thats like my saying I have 99.9999999 certainty that nothing exists. Of course we cant know everything. If nothing is there, and someone makes a claim, why take it into consideration if that claim does not add up to what you already trust as reality? Why take the bait?

If there is nothing, we STILL can't know it. There is a POSSIBILITY that gods exist. We can't say that they don't because they are super the natural. It's an unverifiable claim. so we cannot expect any evidence. But that doesn't MEAN that we can be CERTAIN that no gods exist. So, the number. I am 99.999999999999% CERTAIN that there is no gods. But I am not 100% as I just don't KNOW everything in the universe and out of the universe to GO CHECK.

Why have that 1% factor? Unless you actually believe he could exist rather than the fact he is made up (fantasy)? Why consider it 1% true because the claim it is?

I never gave it a 1% probability. I gave it something like 0.00000000000001 % probability. And the REASON is that I just don't know everything there is to know.

If you went off what you already know (pretending I know general human knowledge of what you know) then there is no 1% factor. You may believe that there could be a 1% chance there is a ball. The FACT is there is not.

The question is.. HOW DO I KNOW there is no ball? Can I prove that there is no ball? ... If I can PROVE that there is no ball.. then I am more sure than if I CAN'T at all prove that there is no ball. In any case, since I don't know EVERY detail about the universe and what may be outside of the universe, I can't SAY that it's impossible that some undetectable ball exists in an invisible way. I give it a 0.00000000000000000001 % probability. That's not very high. AND I only give it that much because I don't know every detail about reality.

Explained above. If you spoke to a theist and he said an invisible man is in front of you, to take his claim into consider, it is appropriate to put yourself in his shoes. Pretending that God does exist to talk about him to a theist.

Why is it appropriate to put myself in his shoes? He either has evidence for his claim or he doesn't. I don't have to wear any other shoes than my own to evaluate his truth claims.

Then there is no such thing as facts. I am on a smartphone but there is a 1% loop hole that I am typing on piano and its sending stacatto messages in the air to tap you on the shounder when in press the note C. Is that what you mean?

In a way yes. But that probability isn't 1%. It's something like 0.00000000000001 %. That isn't very high at all. The probability that you ARE on a cell phone would be a bit higher than that.. maybe close to 99.9999999999999999 %. Do you see a subtle difference in these numbers?

1. When my family saw spirits, we treat them just as anyone else. When I saw one I didnt run for evidence. When held down, I was more intrigued that there are spirits (not beliefs). When it comes to spirituality and things how I was raised, I dont question it. If it is true/fact why look into it. There was no supernatural concept on my family. Well, except on holleween.

Ok, you don't rely on evidence. Then your claims are based on WHAT exactly?
Ghosts and spirits are supernatural by the way. We have NO evidence that they actually exist other than in people's imagination.

2. Only if it doesnt harm me, others, and it benefits my life.

That doesn't mean HOW you arrive at a belief.. You don't seem to understand the question. It was pretty straight forward. The USEFULNESS of a belief doesn't affect it's TRUTH, Even a FALSE belief can be USEFUL. Just because a belief BENEFITS your life doesn't have ANYTHING to do with it's truth.

3. If you say you cannot be sure 100 percent, nothing is false.
From your point of view, no.

Sorry, but JUST BECAUSE I can't know something 100& doesn't mean I can't KNOW anything at all. All that it means is that I don't happen to KNOW everything in the universe. But I DO know SOME things about it. 99.99999999999999999% certainty on some things is PRETTY HIGH. It's almost close to 100%.

Perhaps I should ask you a question here... WHAT do you believe you know with 100% certainty? What if you were DREAMING of a cell phone, but you were actually dancing on a stage?.... Are you 100% sure that you aren't dreaming? People make mistakes., Are you 100% sure that you never make a mistake about some aspect of reality? People don't know everything there is to know about the universe.. are you sure you DO know everything in the universe so that you have 100% knowledge?

From my view, I dont follow anything false. Thats my morals. Whether it is true, I do not know. I dont question what I know is fact unle well, i like to study it, or it influences myself or others in a bad way.

So you don't care if what you believe in is true or not? You just call it true and that's that? Well, maybe you can convince yourself with that method, but you won't be able to convince anyone else. And this doesn't seem to matter to you. That's a shame. I care about my beliefs. I only WANT to believe true things.. and DISBELIEVE false things. Why would you want to believe things that are false?

How can you KNOW if they are true or false if you don't even CARE if they are or not?

I know it does not. THAT is not my point. All three of you telling me science and were talking about religion. I could have said the moon is not spinning. Were not talking about science.

We were just pointing out that you have some FACTS wrong.. and you pretend it doesn't matter. BUT IT DOES MATTER. The truth really DOES matter. Believe what you like, it's your choice. But if you don't care if things are true or not.. it's not going to be useful to talk to you at all. Why bother discussing something if I don't know if you care about the truth or not?

Id just be curious of "why" he says he has the invisible ball, how he got to that belief, why he is selling it. I find no reason to ask for evidence.

Of course we may be curious as to why he would want to invent an invisible ball. You won't care about evidence if you don't care about the truth of the matter. In this case, an invisible ball.. in other cases... gods. But if the truth doesn't concern you... I have to say that I lose interest in anything you have to say about anything .

We only know what we, as humanity, experience in one way or another and observe. We say we know based on these experiences and observations. So, what I say that I know is based on experience, historical knowledge, psychology, and culture. I dont understand what other type of proof atheist need to disprove God. ]

You don't know. That's fine. We all don't know certain things. Maybe you can learn in here.

I dont see how you got this conclusion.

Some Christians don't care about evidence or truth either. Some Christians also doubt science as a tested method to acquire true knowledge. You seem to be thinking that's a good idea. It's not.

Some theists believe in spirits and don't worry about evidence. You do the exact same thing, apparently. Just like some Christians you want to criticize. That's a bit ironic.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

That really depends on how you use the word "reasonable".

I don't think it's reasonable to believe in something for which there is NO proof and NO evidence.. but hey.. that's just me.

I conclude the reasonable base of deductions from facts and evidence. Hearsay is neither. And while there is no evidence for or against God, we have the universe which abides by rational natural law, so far, with no exceptions to note, which begs an explanation. How do we deal this perfectly rational universe, which itself has nothing on which to base any rational speculation on as to its source.....at all. Do we declare, without the first inkling of validation, that the universe sprang into being of its own accord, that there was no conscious will involved--"with NO proof and NO evidence"?

 

[Bunyip]

I conclude the reasonable base of deductions from facts and evidence. Hearsay is neither. And while there is no evidence for or against God, we have the universe which abides by rational natural law, so far, with no exceptions to note, which begs an explanation. How do we deal this perfectly rational universe, which itself has nothing on which to base any rational speculation on as to its source.....at all. Do we declare, without the first inkling of validation, that the universe sprang into being of its own accord, that there was no conscious will involved--"with NO proof and NO evidence"?

No, that would be nearly as mad as declaring that a space wizard with magic powers must have done it. Which is why atheism makes no such declaration on the origins of the universe.

 

[Looncall]

I conclude the reasonable base of deductions from facts and evidence. Hearsay is neither. And while there is no evidence for or against God, we have the universe which abides by rational natural law, so far, with no exceptions to note, which begs an explanation. How do we deal this perfectly rational universe, which itself has nothing on which to base any rational speculation on as to its source.....at all. Do we declare, without the first inkling of validation, that the universe sprang into being of its own accord, that there was no conscious will involved--"with NO proof and NO evidence"?

False dichotomy. There is the third response of witholding opinion until evidence is found.

The "if there is not yet a natural explanation then a supernatural one must be true" gambit is dishonest.

 

[psychoslice]

Yes I can say that there is no God.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I cant tell if you are taking this personally when I say "you" or if you are using caps for emphasis. Let me know.

OF COURSE WE WANT EVIDENCE

Everyone is different. Some people live off belief. A lot of people dont question their religious beliefs. There is nothing wront that.

I don't at all have to put myself in the theist's shoes. I don't at all EVER pretend along with the theist that his god is real. If his god is real, he will be able to provide evidence that it is real. That's it. I don't have to BE a theist to ask for evidence

Thats okay. If I debate, I want to know more about the other side so I'd know enough to support my case. In other words, I cant go over a case and prepare to win without us lawyers Both going over the discover.

If there is nothing, we STILL can't know it. There is a POSSIBILITY that gods exist. We can't say that they don't because they are super the natural. It's an unverifiable claim. so we cannot expect any evidence. But that doesn't MEAN that we can be CERTAIN that no gods exist. So, the number. I am 99.999999999999% CERTAIN that there is no gods. But I am not 100% as I just don't KNOW everything in the universe and out of the universe to GO CHECK

Why do You believe God can exist one percent chance?

Unless there is no nothing for You personally ?


You=You personally
you=everyone in general

I never gave it a 1% probability. I gave it something like 0.00000000000001 % probability. And the REASON is that I just don't know everything there is to know.

Then nothing is a fact to You. Anything can be anything or one withoit us Knowing it

The question is.. HOW DO I KNOW there is no ball? Can I prove that there is no ball? ... If I can PROVE that there is no ball.. then I am more sure than if I CAN'T at all prove that there is no ball. In any case, since I don't know EVERY detail about the universe and what may be outside of the universe, I can't SAY that it's impossible that some undetectable ball exists in an invisible way. I give it a 0.00000000000000000001 % probability. That's not very high. AND I only give it that much because I don't know every detail about reality.

There is no ball. Only a claim. Why are You giving a chance there can be something from nothing?

Do You believe something can come from nothing?

hy is it appropriate to put myself in his shoes? He either has evidence for his claim or he doesn't. I don't have to wear any other shoes than my own to evaluate his truth claims.

Explained above. You (in general) need to evaluate by not only what you evaluate but what they have to evaluate

In other words, to win the case it not all about discover. The procecutor needs to understand where the defendent comes from in order to cross examine him (that is, using street smarts)

In a way yes. But that probability isn't 1%. It's something like 0.00000000000001 %. That isn't very high at all. The probability that you ARE on a cell phone would be a bit higher than that.. maybe close to 99.9999999999999999 %. Do you see a subtle difference in these numbers?

I just see You giving the falsehood I am on a cellphone a less than one pecent chance that I am not. I find that weird.

Ok, you don't rely on evidence. Then your claims are based on WHAT exactly?

Ghosts and spirits are supernatural by the way. We have NO evidence that they actually exist other than in people's imagination.

Witness and experience. Supernatural is no different than You and I. We are all part of life. I find it weird people seperate the two. That is my faith.

That doesn't mean HOW you arrive at a belief.. You don't seem to understand the question. It was pretty straight forward. The USEFULNESS of a belief doesn't affect it's TRUTH, Even a FALSE belief can be USEFUL. Just because a belief BENEFITS your life doesn't have ANYTHING to do with it's truth.

How? It wasnt rocket science. I need not evidence for spirits as I dont for You unless I al talking to a robot. THEN you have a point. I am only 99% certain I am not.

I did say posts ago beliefs arent truth.

Sorry, but JUST BECAUSE I can't know something 100& doesn't mean I can't KNOW anything at all. All that it means is that I don't happen to KNOW everything in the universe

I dont either. What is comming across to me is You feel that nothing can be 100% certain. That means you Know nothing at all. You have a high 99% Belief it is true. Thats pretty high, thats why we say we know based on many factors.

Perhaps I should ask you a question here... WHAT do you believe you know with 100% certainty? What if you were DREAMING of a cell phone, but you were actually dancing on a stage?.... Are you 100% sure that you aren't dreaming? People make mistakes., Are you 100% sure that you never make a mistake about some aspect of reality? People don't know everything there is to know about the universe.. are you sure you DO know everything in the universe so that you have 100% knowledge?

I could be dreaming. Based on many factors, I am not. I dont care to list the logistics. Literally--speaking, I am not in a dream. We can use Ifs all we want. That doesnt affect reality.

Unless You feel that the fact you could be dreaming is a slip up on by many professionals that Know you are not?

So you don't care if what you believe in is true or not? You just call it true and that's that?

A lot of things I Know is true.

If it is based on belief, if it does not harm others, myself, and it helps me live a better life I can care less how people label it.

How can you KNOW if they are true or false if you don't even CARE if they are or not?

Not caring does not affect what I know. Unless you are assuming I never took the time to look it up when I Wanted to not because I need to.

Liken, I said. I am curious but I never read anything that has challenged what I Know. (Talking in general)

You won't care about evidence if you don't care about the truth of the matter.

How do You define truth? If everything has a 99% percent probability it is something else, there is truth/fact just beliefs and really really high assumptions.

I define truth as what the dictionary says "absolute certainty; begond a reasonable doubt" If this diff is true for ex. my on a cell phone, why look for evidence that it could be false?

. But if the truth doesn't concern you... I have to say that I lose interest in anything you have to say about anything

How do You define truth? Facts concern me. I see no need to search for facts to counteract What I already Know is fact.

Some Christians don't care about evidence or truth either. Some Christians also doubt science as a tested method to acquire true knowledge. You seem to be thinking that's a good idea. It's not.

Some theists believe in spirits and don't worry about evidence. You do the exact same thing, apparently. Just like some Christians you want to criticize. That's a bit ironic.

I am not a theist; and, yes, I dont see the need to find evidence against what I Know is true just because someone claims it is not.

Aka. If we are debating whether I am on a cell phone, I find it a useless debate. I cant change fact just because You "may" say I am lying.

 

[Blastcat]

I conclude the reasonable base of deductions from facts and evidence. Hearsay is neither. And while there is no evidence for or against God, we have the universe which abides by rational natural law, so far, with no exceptions to note, which begs an explanation. How do we deal this perfectly rational universe, which itself has nothing on which to base any rational speculation on as to its source.....at all. Do we declare, without the first inkling of validation, that the universe sprang into being of its own accord, that there was no conscious will involved--"with NO proof and NO evidence"?

We do NOT declare that the universe sprang into being by it's own accord. Why would you presume, without the first INKLING of validation that the universe HAS AN ACCORD OF ANY KIND?.... It's almost as if this universe could THINK. Why would you PRESUME that there is a conscious WILL involved at all ... with no proof and no evidence?

But of course, nobody DECLARES how the universe started in the first place, because NOBODY KNOWS. Only CHARLATANS would pretend to know what they CLEARLY do not.

Now, when you say that there is NO evidence FOR a god, we agree. We have NONE.
BUT when you say that their is NO evidence AGAINST a god, you are mistaken. Things that don't exist PROVIDE NO EVIDENCE at all.. JUST LIKE THIS GOD. So, this total lack of evidence FOR the god IS evidence that it operates JUST LIKE ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT DON'T EXIST.

Maybe it feels BETTER to you that there is this grand overlord looking at us from a distance... But there is JUST as much evidence for this god as there is for SANTA or VISHNU or ALLAH or fairies or ghosts and goblins. Just because the idea gratifies you in some way DOES NOT mean that it is actual.

Just because you might not be COMFORTABLE not knowing how the universe 'sprang' into being does NOT mean that any GOD was involved, or that any CONSCIOUS being was involved. We CLEARLY understand that natural things do NOT need a consciousness to make them happen. Snow flakes don't need gods or fairies or angels to make them happen. Sand dunes and waves and clouds and thunderstorms aren't being caused by consciousness of some kind. We know the physical processes.

Now, AS to your argument from ignorance. PLEASE... this is getting so old.

Just because we know NOTHING about ONE THING it says NOTHING at all about another thing.

Not knowing X does NOT imply or prove Y.

Just because we can't figure out infinite regress does NOT mean that there is a consciousness out there to solve our problem with knowledge. It solves absolutely NOTHING to pretend that a "prime mover" exists in order to resolve our ignorance and our fear of the UNKNOWN. OR worse, to pretend that we know what we truly don't know in order to prop up some favorite fantasy. Yes, there are things we humans JUST DON'T KNOW.

And NO... you have no PROOF that a god exists, you have no evidence at all that it does or ever did. The only things people seem to bring INSTEAD of evidence or proof is an assortment of LOGICAL FALLACIES, wishful thinking, circular thinking, confirmation bias and word games. That's what happens when we abandon REASON and try to defend the indefensible.

The more we attempt at defending an irrational notion, the more we dive into IRRATIONALITY.

I have feelings and hopes and dreams and wishes. But I don't go around pretending to know what I clearly DO NOT. I don't mistake my wishes and hopes and feelings for REALITY.

If I make a TRUTH claim, I better be prepared to bring EVIDENCE to support it. Otherwise, I would be MERELY wasting everyone's time.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

No, that would be nearly as mad as declaring that a space wizard with magic powers must have done it. Which is why atheism makes no such declaration on the origins of the universe.

Your terminology keeps everything foggy while attempting to put words in the mouth of the opposition. Nobody said anything about declarations. I'm talking about reasonable speculation about the fact that the universe exists and the fact that we have no evidence about how it was initiated at 10 to the minus 43 seconds after an implied time = 0.

False dichotomy. There is the third response of witholding opinion until evidence is found.

But you aren't withholding opinion. You're assuming that there's no conscious will involved until there's evidence, while defaulting to spontaneous creation also without any evidence. Bias.

The "if there is not yet a natural explanation then a supernatural one must be true" gambit is dishonest.

Putting more words in my mouth. How do you derive that from there's no evidence for either? Looks like dishonesty in the flesh. This is so obviously disingenuous, I can only imagine the spiderwebs that statement had to go through to make it to the surface.

Yes I can say that there is no God.

I could say that too, but my psyche would break trying to push the lack of evidence behind it through the gauntlet of the light of day. You can't reasonably say (you know) there is no God because you have no evidence....at all.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

We do NOT declare that the universe sprang into being by it's own accord. Why would you presume, without the first INKLING of validation that the universe HAS AN ACCORD OF ANY KIND?

You're quibbling in attempt to sidestep the issue. You know what I'm talking about--spontaneous genesis. Why don't you stick your neck out and let us know how YOU'D characterize it. The burden of proof is on those who champion one side, the other side, or both. Only the cavalier materialist gets to walk away saying I don't give a damn.

Why would you PRESUME that there is a conscious WILL involved at all ... with no proof and no evidence?

I DON'T presume, I consider the only two possibilities I (or you) can conceive--on of which you dismiss out-of-hand when they're both equally lacking in evidence.

But of course, nobody DECLARES how the universe started in the first place, because NOBODY KNOWS. Only CHARLATANS would pretend to know what they CLEARLY do not.

I've never claimed knowledge, which you have to know by now since I'm blue in the face saying it. It's so obvious, I (and others lurking here) can only draw one conclusion about your obfuscating motivations.

 

[Blastcat]

I cant tell if you are taking this personally when I say "you" or if you are using caps for emphasis. Let me know.

Oh i have this bad habit of using all kinds of FORMATTING words that I think are IMPORTANT.
I'm not angry. You haven't done anything to offend me in any way.

Everyone is different. Some people live off belief. A lot of people dont question their religious beliefs. There is nothing wront that.

That's right. Some people really don't care at all about the truth of their beliefs. I would venture to say that MOST people don't. Most people are just born into a religion of their upbringing,..trust their parents and adult caregivers and that's that.

No thinking about the beliefs. The beliefs go UNCHALLENGED.

That's fine as far as it goes.. but .. I WOULD NEVER SAY that's a good way of THINKING. It isn't. It's not thinking AT ALL.
Some people actually DO care about their beliefs enough to INVESTIGATE as to their TRUTH. But admittedly, this takes a desire for the truth and a bit of education in order to know how to proceed. Most people just don't have the SKILLS needed to be able to tell the difference between fact and fiction. That's a HUGE problem for our world. Hopefully, things will improve with time.

Thats okay. If I debate, I want to know more about the other side so I'd know enough to support my case. In other words, I cant go over a case and prepare to win without us lawyers Both going over the discover.

Good. It's important to get the facts right. But if I am trying to UNDERSTAND my opponent's position, I don't have to pretend to AGREE at any time. If my opponent can bring sufficient EVIDENCE that what he claims is TRUE.. then I will be forced to ADMIT it... but if my opponent brings NO evidence.. then I am forced to reject the claims.

Why do You believe God can exist one percent chance?

Please try to understand the difference between 1 percent and 0.000000000000000000001 percent.
That's a HUGE difference.

THE REASON I only say that god can exist with a 0.00000000000000000000001 % percent probability is that we have ZERO evidence that it DOES exist. So, the probability that it's a real thing is EXCEEDINGLY LOW.
Another reason is that we have ZERO evidence for ANY GOD of ANY KIND at all...
And for the OTHER SIDE.. we have EXTREMELY STRONG evidence that NATURE exists the way we describe it. THAT probability is something like 99.99999999999999999999%....

Unless there is no nothing for You personally ?

Reality does not rely on my conclusions. IF there is evidence for a god, PLEASE SHOW US WHAT THAT IS.. as nobody has given any evidence EVER. But I am open to the idea. It's just that I haven't seen any YET...
That's why I KEEP asking for evidence.

Then nothing is a fact to You. Anything can be anything or one withoit us Knowing it

That's just wrong. That is NOT my position at all.
I never said that or implied that. Of course there are facts that we know.
Anything CANNOT be just anything. It's just that we DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING.

Notice the different words.. JUST because we don 't know EVERYTHING does NOT mean that we don't know ANYTHING.

SOME things is not the same as EVERYTHING.

There is no ball. Only a claim. Why are You giving a chance there can be something from nothing?

You make a CLAIM that there is no ball.. What PROOF do you have there there isn't one?
Of course the ONLY proof that there isn't a ball is the LACK of evidence.. however, lack of evidence isn't proof that it's not there and that we JUST CAN'T see it. You can't "see" the other side of the moon. Not from your home. You just can't.

Yes I am giving a chance. That's how we learn new things. If we ASSUME knowledge, we will NOT investigate. There STILL MIGHT BE A BALL.. your assertion isn't PROOF that there is no magical invisible ball. It's just that we have NO reason to believe in magic or invisible balls.. so I give the probability of a magical invisible ball as 0.0000000000000000000001 %.

DOES the other side of the moon actually EXIST? Well, now , because we are curious we have actually CIRCLED the moon.. and we NOW HAVE EVIDENCE. That RAISES the probability that the other side exists BY A HUGE AMOUNT.... ( not that it was ever a real question.. but BEFORE we had actual evidence.. we DIDN'T have that knowledge. We just had a LOT of educated guesses.. but GUESSES no matter HOW CLEVER.. just aren't FACTS.

Same thing with your cell phone.. same things with spirits. You might be able to give me evidence for your cell phone.. seems easy enough. BUT what evidence can you bring for your SPIRIT claims?

But again.. you don't seem to CARE about presenting evidence. You just seem to "have" beliefs.
Well, fine. You can have as many beliefs as you like.
Believe whatever you choose for whatever reason.

BUT if you want to convince anyone ELSE that your beliefs are TRUE.. you will have to do MORE than just talk about them.
Talk is cheap. Facts are facts. Bring us some FACTS.. some EVIDENCE and then we can take your talk seriously.

Right now, I can't at all take what you CLAIM is true seriously.

You might be interested in reading about Russell's celestial tea pot for a really good explanation about probabilities.
Also Richard Carrier explains Bayesian analysis in his book "Proving History".. he explains some tricky bits of probabilities you might NOT be aware of. And he does a fine job of explaining why gods are HUGELY improbable.

Try to understand that 0.0000000000000000000001 % is EXTREMELY SMALLER than 1%. You seem to miss the difference between the two numbers.

Do You believe something can come from nothing?

I don't have an opinion. Some physicists say that in the quantum level, this might be true.

Explained above. You (in general) need to evaluate by not only what you evaluate but what they have to evaluate

In other words, to win the case it not all about discover. The procecutor needs to understand where the defendent comes from in order to cross examine him (that is, using street smarts)

Yes, we need to UNDERSTAND the opponent's position. That doesn't EVER mean agreeing with the opponent's position.

I just see You giving the falsehood I am on a cellphone a less than one pecent chance that I am not. I find that weird.

Probabilities are a bit weird to understand at first.
A lot of things that we learn seem weird at first.
What's important is that we have a really good METHOD to know that what we are learning is TRUE or not.

Just try to imagine that you DON'T know anything at all with 100% certainty because you don't happen to KNOW everything with 100% certainty. And of course, when I say it's LESS than one percent chance that something else is happening than what you THINK is happening, I mean MUCH MUCH LESS than one percent. Try to understand the difference between 1% and 0.0000000000000000000001%. There is a VAST difference.

Witness and experience. Supernatural is no different than You and I. We are all part of life. I find it weird people seperate the two. That is my faith.

Faith is nice.
However, faith doesn't PROVE that there is ANY supernatural.
The REASON that I separate the NATURAL from the SUPERNATURAL is that we have TONS of evidence that the natural world DOES IN FACT EXIST.

And we have ZERO evidence about anything supernatural.
That's a HUGE difference.

How? It wasnt rocket science. I need not evidence for spirits as I dont for You unless I al talking to a robot. THEN you have a point. I am only 99% certain I am not.

If you don't need evidence for your beliefs then you can't know if they are TRUE or not. You might simply be imagining all of this.
Unfortunately, things in THE REAL WORLD leave evidence for their existence. If you don't have evidence, then you might be wrong about your beliefs. If you don't CARE that your beliefs might be false.. ok.

I would NEVER believe in something that I didn't have evidence for.

I did say posts ago beliefs arent truth.

Then we agree. Your spirit beliefs aren't truth. So, you might believe in something that is false for some reason. I have NO idea why you would choose to believe in something for which you have NO evidence. To me, that's a very bad idea.

I dont either. What is comming across to me is You feel that nothing can be 100% certain. That means you Know nothing at all. You have a high 99% Belief it is true. Thats pretty high, thats why we say we know based on many factors.

You are making a logical mistake. Some doesn't mean All.

NOT KNOWING EVERYTHING DOES NOT MEAN NOT KNOWING ANYTHING.

The word EVERYTHING is different from the word ANYTHING.
The word "some" doesn't have the same meaning as the word "all".

Now, when you say that your spirit beliefs are at a confidence level of 99% I agree. That's pretty high.
Can you tell me WHY you have that confidence?

You say you don't CARE to make a list of your criteria for how you establish that something is true or not.
Well, then, how can I accept your word that what you believe in IS true or not?

You might have used NO method.. or a very BAD method.
In fact, if you don't make that list.. I won't know if you are LYING.

If the method you used to be so confident about spirits is a good one.. It will be repeatable, and then ANYONE could share your so called "knowledge" about spirits you seem so confident about.

So, WHY are you so confident? WHAT is your METHOD?

If it's a GOOD method.. I will want to use it.
IF you HAVE no real method.. then.. I won't be impressed at all.. I can't USE something that isn't THERE.
And if you have a BAD method.. I won't want to use that , either.

BUT if just don't CARE how you arrive at your conclusions, don't be surprised that I wont care about them.
You can have your conclusions.
I'm not just going to believe anything you say.

I don't DO that when it comes to the supernatural.

I could be dreaming. Based on many factors, I am not. I dont care to list the logistics. Literally--speaking, I am not in a dream. We can use Ifs all we want. That doesnt affect reality.

Well, if you don't CARE to explain your reasoning. I won't care about it either.
I won't pretend, however, that you have GOOD reasoning unti
But you can SAY anything you like... and we wont care. Is that ok with you?

You might be interested in reading some DESCARTES. We can't actually PROVE that we aren't in a dream that only SEEMS perfectly real. Maybe you can. With your logistics. I would be GREATLY interested in hearing your response to Descartes. His dilemmas have YET to be resolved. But maybe your LOGISTICS are better than most philosophers in 4 hundred years?

Unless You feel that the fact you could be dreaming is a slip up on by many professionals that Know you are not?

The thing is.. the PROS might be in the dream as well. The "professionals" are in the same situation as the rest of us.

IA lot of things I Know is true.

Then it should be EASY to prove that.
We agree that CELL PHONES exist. So, I wont ask for evidence about them. HOWEVER.. we do NOT agree about spirits.. so I WILL ask about your evidence about them.

IIf it is based on belief, if it does not harm others, myself, and it helps me live a better life I can care less how people label it.

The FACT that your beliefs do no harm does NOT mean your beliefs are true.

INot caring does not affect what I know. Unless you are assuming I never took the time to look it up when I Wanted to not because I need to.

I try to NOT make assumptions. SO, IF you "looked it up" then maybe you can share your wisdom.
If you have a really good method, I want to use it too.

ILiken, I said. I am curious but I never read anything that has challenged what I Know. (Talking in general)

You don't even CARE about the truth of your beliefs.. so of COURSE nothing can 'challenge' them.
What you are describing is called "confirmation bias".. if you NEVER changed your mind?...
Are you saying you were NEVER wrong about anything, and that you KNOW everything?

IHow do You define truth? If everything has a 99% percent probability it is something else, there is truth/fact just beliefs and really really high assumptions.

I NEVER said ONE TIME that everything has a 99% probability.

I describe the truth as
"that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality."

If what I believe in cannot be made to accord with the rest of reality, and that I cannot find evidence that it does.. then it's JUST NOT TRUE.

II define truth as what the dictionary says "absolute certainty; begond a reasonable doubt" If this diff is true for ex. my on a cell phone, why look for evidence that it could be false?

Beyond a reasonable doubt is not the same as absolute certainty.
And I don't agree with that definition. I can be AS CERTAIN AS I LIKE.. and what I believe in MIGHT still NOT BE TRUE. I might be MISTAKEN or DELUDED somehow. WE KNOW that happens.

Why look for evidence at all, you ask?
I hope you are NEVER a member of a jury if you have no regard for EVIDENCE.

You don't CARE about your beliefs enough to see if they are true or false. THAT means that you can't tell if what you believe in is true. You MIGHT be believing in something that is FALSE.

Now, when it comes to CELL PHONES... it's pretty easy to tell if it's real or not. If the belief is true or not DUE to the overwhelming EVIDENCE that it conforms to reality. HOWEVER, this is NOT the same with spirits or the supernatural, where we DO NOT have evidence.

But you don't CARE about evidence.. and consequently, you don't really CARE if what you believe in is true or not.
I usually have to IGNORE people like that.
I want a discussion with those who DO care about their beliefs and if they are true or not.

Why would I EVER have a conversation with someone who doesn't value the truth?
Someone like that might be lying, or delusional. It's a waste of my time to engage someone who doesn't require evidence for what they believe in.

Go ahead.. believe anything you want for whatever reason you choose. BUT if you want to discuss it RATIONALLY.. you will need to BE rational.

How do You define truth? Facts concern me. I see no need to search for facts to counteract What I already Know is fact.

Facts concern you but you don't use EVIDENCE to know if you have a fact or a fiction? How do you TELL if you have a fact if you don't use evidence?

It's as if you have ALL the facts you will ever need. Well, bravo. Scientists don't feel that way. They are CURIOUS about what they don't know. Some people also want to LEARN .. and don't pretend to have all the information in the world.

You may be CERTAIN that what you believe in is a FACT.. but you aren't convincing anyone ELSE.
In order for ME to accept your spirit claims as a FACT.... you would need to provide some EVIDENCE.. and you wont bother with that. So.... no. I don't accept your claims.

I am not a theist; and, yes, I dont see the need to find evidence against what I Know is true just because someone claims it is not.

Ok, you are NOT a theist.. HOWEVER , you seem to believe very FIRMLY in spirits and a creator thing that started the universe. How DO you describe your beliefs?

You are very happy with your beliefs and you don't feel the need to justify them to others or to yourself. Fine.
Believe anything you LIKE. I'm not stopping you at ALL.

It's just that if you want to convince anyone ELSE of your beliefs.. you will need to TRY to present a rational case. And don't forget the evidence. Until then.. you can say whatever you like.

Aka. If we are debating whether I am on a cell phone, I find it a useless debate. I cant change fact just because You "may" say I am lying.

But you MAY be lying. How would I KNOW?
But you brought up the cell phone. I didn't. I don't care about any cell phones.

This is REALLY about your supernatural claims about spirits and your CERTAINTY about your beliefs. I don't see ANY evidence that what you say is TRUE .. and you don't even CARE about evidence, so you won't be BRINGING any ....

Your CERTAINTY , however, says NOTHING about the TRUTH of your beliefs. Maybe you don't even CARE about the truth at all.

I usually tend to IGNORE people who don't care about the truth. Yes.. these kinds of people MIGHT be lying to me.
I'd rather deal with people who CARE about the truth.. ( or at the VERY least, SAY that they do ).

You have NOT said that you care about the truth, but you HAVE said that you don't care about proving that what you believe in is true. I am QUICKLY losing interest in your claims.

 

[Blastcat]

You're quibbling in attempt to sidestep the issue. You know what I'm talking about--spontaneous genesis. Why don't you stick your neck out and let us know how YOU'D characterize it. The burden of proof is on those who champion one side, the other side, or both. Only the cavalier materialist gets to walk away saying I don't give a damn.

Quibbling?
FOR the record.. I don't KNOW how the universe got started. I don't THINK that anyone DOES have that information.
There is the big bang theory.. and that seems very likely.. but of course that only describes what happened AFTER the universe started.. as we can't LOOK right now past that horizon.

I am NOT "championing" some position on the origins of the universe.
I just wont accept a position on the topic that isn't JUSTIFIED in some way with EVIDENCE.
If you say, for example that GOD did it.. Well. I HAVE to ask if you KNOW that's true.. or just .. believe it.

Because we can make unsupported HYPOTHESES all day long.
I don't care about those.
We can speculate until the cows come home.
That might be ENTERTAINING.. But that's it.

I DON'T presume, I consider the only two possibilities I (or you) can conceive--on of which you dismiss out-of-hand when they're both equally lacking in evidence.

WHAT position are you saying is LACKING in evidence?
What are you comparing to your god hypothesis?

That NATURE exists?
Do you IMAGINE that we have NO evidence for how NATURE works or that it EXISTS?

AS to your claim that there are ONLY two possibilities.. HOW again do you KNOW there are only two? How do you know that there IS the supernatural to even BE a possibility?.. do you have any ANY proof that there is an actual supernatural ?

I've never claimed knowledge, which you have to know by now since I'm blue in the face saying it. It's so obvious, I (and others lurking here) can only draw one conclusion about your obfuscating motivations.

You don't have to insult me to get your point across. IF I misunderstand you, just clarify and I will THANK you for it.
So, you make NO knowledge claim.

Ok.. then you aren't saying that YOU KNOW the spirit world is TRUE or that YOU KNOW any god is TRUE.
Is that correct?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'ma try to make this simple since we disagree on a lot things.

1. Beliefs are not facts
2. We can prove something is a fact based on many factors we use with our senses (and not ALL sense are of the five. Please take that into consideration)

That's fine as far as it goes.. but .. I WOULD NEVER SAY that's a good way of THINKING. It isn't. It's not thinking AT ALL.

3. We disagree. I do not see it harmful that SOME live off of belief in a Non harmful way. I do not see anything illogical on living by belief because a lot of religion is basic psychology. It helps the mind and body together (which means Spirit). It is not supernatural. We just make it fancy.

Some people actually DO care about their beliefs enough to INVESTIGATE as to their TRUTH. But admittedly, this takes a desire for the truth and a bit of education in order to know how to proceed. Most people just don't have the SKILLS needed to be able to tell the difference between fact and fiction. That's a HUGE problem for our world. Hopefully, things will improve with time.

4. Some people believe that their beliefs ARE the Truth; therefore, THEY need no reason to investigate it.

Usually, people investigate when they see something funky with their belief system. Hence, why there are many converted atheist etc. NOT ALL people are like that.

I understand that you disagree; please, try not to put people down by you opinions because of it (same as believers do just the other way around. Using their belief or opinion and stating it as a FACT to on others) Makes people defensive.

Good. It's important to get the facts right. But if I am trying to UNDERSTAND my opponent's position, I don't have to pretend to AGREE at any time.

I never said you had to agree. I said put yourselves in their shoes to UNDERSTAND where they are coming from. I don't agree with Christians. I do try to put myself in their shoes since I have experienced positive things from Christianity and help my friend because of it. I do not agree AND I put myself in their shoes.

Good. It's important to get the facts right. But if I am trying to UNDERSTAND my opponent's position, I don't have to pretend to AGREE at any time. If my opponent can bring sufficient EVIDENCE that what he claims is TRUE.. then I will be forced to ADMIT it... but if my opponent brings NO evidence.. then I am forced to reject the claims.

First part already clarified.

I guess everyone is different. I don't see a need to ask for evidence for something I (okay, I will say believe so you don't have to repeat your point) believe is not there.

Unless it is in my best interest to know? Maybe I am curious? Maybe those are reasons I would ask. NOT to prove that they are illogical but to LEARN from them about their train of thought.

THE REASON I only say that god can exist with a 0.00000000000000000000001 % percent probability is that we have ZERO evidence that it DOES exist. So, the probability that it's a real thing is EXCEEDINGLY LOW.

Okay. It's low. Very low. How that is coming across is that thee is no such thing as nothing. EVERYTHING that we claim true has the POSSIBLITY of existing. Even if I said "Rrjlkajsdad is a rat that lives in the ROOnVille down in the county of Sempuki" Instead of dismissing the claim, you (not You) would want to find evidence for it. It's an empty claim. They are words. Why ask for evidence for it.

Maybe because it is a popular thing to debate?
Maybe one still has strong feelings about it?
Many reasons.

Underlining it all the reasons, I will always wonder why "debate about nothing" (again, if you say there is a 0000.1 possibility, that means claims can exist. Anything can, really. I just throw out a claim, and poof, it has a possibility of existing)

Reality does not rely on my conclusions. IF there is evidence for a god, PLEASE SHOW US WHAT THAT IS.. as nobody has given any evidence EVER. But I am open to the idea. It's just that I haven't seen any YET...

That's why I KEEP asking for evidence.

There IS NO evidence for God. Why do people keep asking for it?

Spirituality is NOT based on facts. Christians and like religions see synchronicity in life. We see appreciate what happens out of the blue that gives us blessings (aka good things that we give gratitude on our behalf). We are thankful for living and no matter WHO or WHAT a person believes in, if it leads them to a positive life (rather than 911) and gives them a sense of hope, I HAVE NO REASON to question them for evidence of this belief. It's an insult. It's not like the ball scenario. Beliefs are personal.

The italic words are traits of spirituality. (In atheist language, traits for psychological emotional appreciation, etc, of life) Very healthy and normal. Evidence: Ask a doctor.

I never said that or implied that. Of course there are facts that we know.

What is coming across is, for You there is no such thing as facts because they have a 00000.1. (don't know how many 0s you typed) of existing as something else. For example, it is a fact there is nothing in my hand. You gave me that 0000.1 change there could be something.

Now I don't have a fact, I have a belief.

It's not a wrong way to think that everything can't be proven as facts. I just think it's interesting.

Anything CANNOT be just anything. It's just that we DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING.

My brain can't process this.

"Anything cannot be just anything. It's just that we do not know everything. (had to lower the caps)"

If there is a 0000.1 chance that something is not what is claimed to be a fact, anything can be something else in that 000.1 chance. WHY? Because we don't know everything.​

Please read carefully. I'm not being ironic.

Notice the different words.. JUST because we don 't know EVERYTHING does NOT mean that we don't know ANYTHING.

"Just becuase we don't know everything doe snot mean that we don't know anything."

We don't know anything is a fact if we don't know everything is true based on that 000.1 possibility it is not.

You make a CLAIM that there is no ball.. What PROOF do you have there there isn't one?

Of course the ONLY proof that there isn't a ball is the LACK of evidence.. however, lack of evidence isn't proof that it's not there and that we JUST CAN'T see it. You can't "see" the other side of the moon. Not from your home. You just can't.

Science proves both. Ask any scientist if nothing (absent of the Naked Eye exclusion) is in my hand, he'd probably say yes. There are many factors that DISPROVES that there is something there. Like negatives of a film.

If you'd like to add the 000.1 possibility, cool. My mind is getting older to really think of possibilities. I was thinking of going into that field. Changed my mind. I'm happy with how I believe now.

Same thing with your cell phone.. same things with spirits. You might be able to give me evidence for your cell phone.. seems easy enough. BUT what evidence can you bring for your SPIRIT claims?

Why are spirits and cell phone different from each other? Because one is supernatural? My family never thought of spirits as supernatural. We consider them A PART OF LIFE.

Since we don't know everything 100 percent, how can I possibly give you evidence that spirits exist that you will accept; how is it possible to know everything so I can pick what evidence you will take?

Unfortunately, people go on debating about Nothing and trying to find evidence for a claim.

I VALUE people living off of belief. I have seen lives saved. I have seen people's lifestyles changed. I have seen what people use in their spiritual terms, miracles.

BUT if you want to convince anyone ELSE that your beliefs are TRUE.. you will have to do MORE than just talk about them.
Talk is cheap. Facts are facts. Bring us some FACTS.. some EVIDENCE and then we can take your talk seriously.

I have no reason o convince them m beliefs are true. Believers understand to a certain extent. Pagans relate almost one hundred percent. Atheist, well, no.

I don't have an opinion. Some physicists say that in the quantum level, this might be true.

Can't comment here. Have to give me lay man articles to show me everything can exist by the naked eye.

Yes, we need to UNDERSTAND the opponent's position. That doesn't EVER mean agreeing with the opponent's position.

Didn't say agree. Said step in their shoes.

However, faith doesn't PROVE that there is ANY supernatural.

Everyone believes differently. Mine is based on experience--what I, my family, and a real estate later surprisingly, have seen. It's based on feelings. It's based on how I interact with people. It is also PSYCHOLOGICAL if you wan't proof. I don't see it as psychological AND if you put everything about the human body and mind together, that's what spirituality is: the relation between life--the mind, body, other people, and self. You can call spirits delusions. If they are, psychologist have said delusions DO exist. They ARE facts. They are dismissed because they are illogical to other people.

I would NEVER believe in something that I didn't have evidence for.

Nothing wrong with that.

I just hear an undertone of distaste for specifically the supernatural. Seems like a grudge or something. Are there other things that people base their life on that is not religious that you may disagree with because of no evidence or is it only religion?

NOT KNOWING EVERYTHING DOES NOT MEAN NOT KNOWING ANYTHING.

You know what you know (say no ball in my hand), but you mentioned there is a 000.1 chance that there could be one in my hand. Hence, I don't know everything, i just made a CLAIM that I do.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Quibbling?
FOR the record.. I don't KNOW how the universe got started. I don't THINK that anyone DOES have that information.

Why do you first reiterate what I'm saying, and then strain mightily to refute it--to no avail.

 

[Bunyip]

Your terminology keeps everything foggy while attempting to put words in the mouth of the opposition. Nobody said anything about declarations. I'm talking about reasonable speculation about the fact that the universe exists and the fact that we have no evidence about how it was initiated at 10 to the minus 43 seconds after an implied time = 0.

You are confusing atheism for theoretical physics.

But you aren't withholding opinion. You're assuming that there's no conscious will involved until there's evidence, while defaulting to spontaneous creation also without any evidence. Bias.



Putting more words in my mouth. How do you derive that from there's no evidence for either? Looks like dishonesty in the flesh. This is so obviously disingenuous, I can only imagine the spiderwebs that statement had to go through to make it to the surface.



I could say that too, but my psyche would break trying to push the lack of evidence behind it through the gauntlet of the light of day. You can't reasonably say (you know) there is no God because you have no evidence....at all.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

You are confusing atheism for theoretical physics.

NEXT!