Evidence of the Non-Physical

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nonsense, observing that the evidence doesn't demonstrate or need any deity or anything supernatural, doesn't mean one need make unevidenced claims denying those ideas. A lack of belief can be just that, and nothing more.

I have never said that.

1. I know that the universe is natural.
2. I know that the universe is from God.
3. I know that the universe is X.
4. I don't know anything positive about that type of claims, so I don't know what the universe is.
5. I have a whole different answer to what the universe is.

I am a skeptic, so I don't claim knowledge that I don't have, so I go for #4.
What about you?

 

[Sheldon]

Leave me out of it..
I don't subscribe to half-truths and misunderstandings that both sides of this debate are guilty of.

The ToE is a theory whose tenets change regularly. Only the core remains static.
As for creation myths, only G-d knows how mankind was created.
Neither "hey presto and we have Adam" or "Adam evolved from Luca, and thats all there is to it" are likely to be correct, imo.

Well this is a debate forum, if you want to be left out of it then only you can do that. If you comment others may respond, that's how debate tends to work.

Humans were not created, they evolved as did all living things, like it or not that is an objective scientific fact. However even were it not, there is no objective evidence that anything in nature was created or designed.

 

[Sheldon]

I have never said that.

1. I know that the universe is natural.
2. I know that the universe is from God.
3. I know that the universe is X.
4. I don't know anything positive about that type of claims, so I don't know what the universe is.
5. I have a whole different answer to what the universe is.

I am a skeptic, so I don't claim knowledge that I don't have, so I go for #4.
What about you?

Congratulations? I'm not sure what you're looking for here, some validation of your choices? I'm not sure what any of that has to do with post? Here it is again anyway, maybe you could explain the relevance of your post to it?

Sheldon said: ↑
Nonsense, observing that the evidence doesn't demonstrate or need any deity or anything supernatural, doesn't mean one need make unevidenced claims denying those ideas. A lack of belief can be just that, and nothing more.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Congratulations? I'm not sure what you're looking for here, some validation of your choices? I'm not sure what any of that has to do with post? Here it is again anyway, maybe you could explain the relevance of your post to it?

"Nonsense, observing that the evidence doesn't demonstrate or need any deity or anything supernatural, doesn't mean one need make unevidenced claims denying those ideas. A lack of belief can be just that, and nothing more."

Evidence for the bold one.

 

[Sheldon]

"Nonsense, observing that the evidence doesn't demonstrate or need any deity or anything supernatural, doesn't mean one need make unevidenced claims denying those ideas. A lack of belief can be just that, and nothing more."

Evidence for the bold one.

Well it is manifestly true, and I just told you that I don't believe in any deities or anything supernatural, and don't make such claims, I'm not sure what more you want, a signed notarised declaration?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well it is manifestly true, and I just told you that I don't believe in any deities or anything supernatural, and don't make such claims, I'm not sure what more you want, a signed notarised declaration?

It is not true with evidence. It is a personal choice.

 

[Sheldon]

It is not true with evidence. It is a personal choice.

I gave you the evidence, twice?

I both am an atheist who does not believe in anything supernatural or any deity, but do not make contrary claims about those ideas, which in a generic sense would amount to an absolute as they are unfalsifiable, and I could not properly evidence such a claim. If you want more evidence you could look at the result of the poll I started, many other atheists share this view and said so.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I gave you the evidence, twice?

I both am an atheist who does not believe in anything supernatural or any deity, but do not make contrary claims about those ideas, which in a generic sense would amount to an absolute as they are unfalsifiable, and I could not properly evidence such a claim. If you want more evidence you could look at the result of the poll I started, many other atheists share this view and said so.

Yeah, there is no objective evidence for that, as it is a subjective choice in you.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Humans were not created, they evolved as did all living things, like it or not that is an objective scientific fact..

Why can't it be both?

i.e. the universe is created and humans evolved as God had planned

 

[Sheldon]

Yeah, there is no objective evidence for that, as it is a subjective choice in you.

You're doing it again, people make subjective choices, the fact they make those choices is objective. This is a blind spot you may need to work on.

 

[Sheldon]

Why can't it be both?

i.e. the universe is created and humans evolved as God had planned

One is supported by all the objective evidence, the other is not supported by any objective evidence. I don't say it can't be true, as it seems like an unfalsifiable claim, but I don't believe it obviously.

 

[muhammad_isa]

One is supported by all the objective evidence, the other is not supported by any objective evidence..

You saying that does not make it true.
You simply pick and choose what you consider to be "objective".
As far as you're concerned, objective evidence must be empirical evidence.
At least, that is how you come across.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You're doing it again, people make subjective choices, the fact they make those choices is objective. This is a blind spot you may need to work on.

The fact that they do it, doesn't make the choice objective.
I say: God exists. That can be observed, thus God exists.

 

[Sheldon]

You saying that does not make it true.

Correct but it isn't just me saying it, it is a scientific fact.

You simply pick and choose what you consider to be "objective".

Nope, that's you.

As far as you're concerned, objective evidence must be empirical evidence.

Straw man fallacy.

At least, that is how you come across.

So just your subjective biased opinion then.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Straw man fallacy..

Arguing for the sake of it, are we?
It is easy to keep repeating these memes.
We don't really learn anything new.

Tell us then, why can't there be objective evidence for a deity?

 

[Sheldon]

It is easy to keep repeating these memes.

Tell us then, why can't there be objective evidence for a deity?

Logical fallacies are not memes, that's just hilarious.

We don't really learn anything new.

You do seem to struggle to grasp what using a known logical fallacy means. it means the claim is irrational.

Arguing for the sake of it, are we?

That would seem to define voluntary involvement in a debate forum? However lets take another look at the dishonest claim you assigned to me, that I never made:

As far as you're concerned, objective evidence must be empirical evidence.

So a straw man fallacy by definition, and not as you asserted "arguing for the sake of it."

 

[muhammad_isa]

Tell us then, why can't there be objective evidence for a deity?

Logical fallacies are not memes, that's just hilarious.

It's like trying to get blood from a stone.
Can you not just answer the question, however silly you think it is?

 

[Hidingfromyou]

Yeas, as along as you take methodological naturalism for granted.

Well, believers in deities and divinities take those belief-systems for granted. So, I guess we're all making a priori assumptions at some point.

The difference is that one set of a priori claims leads to very good explanatory models and the other does not.

 

[Sheldon]

Tell us then, why can't there be objective evidence for a deity?

Why are you asking me? This is your deity no?

 

[Sheldon]

It's like trying to get blood from a stone.
Can you not just answer the question, however silly you think it is?

You described my pointing out you had used yet another logical fallacy as a meme, so that mismatch is pure sophistry on your part.

If you have objective evidence for any deity, then demonstrate it. Why would you ask an atheist like myself, why theists cannot demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity?