Irony of the evolutionary belief

[YoursTrue]

Once again you are misreading it. Where does he say that God does not exist? It was very clear that he did not say that. Perhaps you did not understand the silly argument that he referred to.

How about this? Do you believe God exists? If not, why not?

 

[YoursTrue]

This is actually mistaken. Every positive claim is false by default unless shown otherwise by supporting evidence.
This can be shown very simply.
For every thing X that does exist or is the state of affairs, there are an infinite number of Y alternative possibilities that could have existed or could been the state of affairs but is not actualized in reality. So without supporting evidence, the default probability for any positive claim to be true is vanishingly small while the default probability of the corresponding negative claim to be true is very close to 1.
Hence the laws of logic dictates that a claim like "X exists" is to be considered false unless properly justifies by evidence. On the contrary a claim like "X does not exist" does not require any evidential backing initially.

So then in the future, it would be realistic for you to support what you say by evidence. And the evidence, as it is said in a court of law, can't be hearsay. So do you, or do you not, believe in God.

 

[The Hammer]

excuse me? do you believe leprechauns are real? If not, why not?

Yes I do... Do you believe they are fake? Can you prove they are if you do?

I also believe in fairies, elves and trolls? What of it?

 

[F1fan]

Oh your God is an imaginary being......

Interesting that you admit Gods can be imaginary. How do you discern real gods from imaginary gods?

To your assertion, I don't have any gods. But you do. We atheists discuss the various claims of Gods by believers like you. Otherwise Gods aren't part of any knowledge that explains what is demonstrably true about the universe. Atheists don't extertain the many various ideas of gods unless we are in debate with believers.

souns like a strong positive claim with a big burdenproof......

But it isn't. This is just more of your poor interpretation ability. You get science wrong, you get what I wrote wrong.

wonder if you can support that assertion

Look up straw man fallacy.

 

[F1fan]

Whether it's a tale or not, you are wrong because God DID let her decide for herself.

Where in the story does it say that?

Let's note that it is a story, not fact, not history.

But thanks anyway for your input, since you're wrong absolutely in your assessment of the account, tale or not. Have a good day and enjoy yourself. I'm beginning to think some of you who are deadset against what the Bible says cannot read or understand too well. Thanks, though. Take care.

We are questioning your understanding and interpretation of the Bible, not the Bible itself. There is a difference, right? You do admit that you could be in error, yes?

 

[F1fan]

big deal. or not a big deal. You can't prove God does not exist either way.

What God is known TO exist? I haven't seen you post any facts.

No one has to prove things not known to exist DON'T exist. The claimants of some affiormative position (like God exists, Jesus saves) are the parties that have the burden of proof. Just because belief in God is so prevatent does not mean it is a given or truth, and any contrary position has to prove the popular belief false. That itself is a fallacy: argument from popularity.

Scientifically or not scientifically. And you also cannot do that with evolution, even if you and others think you can, you cannot.

False, science has done exceptionally well demonstrating that evolution explains the massive diversity of life on the planet, and how it has changed over time. Your refusal to accept the science is the problem.

But if you want to keep trying to show that life as we know it came about by evolution, hey be my guest.

And you will continue to reject it due to your religious bias.

 

[Pogo]

There are claims that evolution is true as if life came about in all its forms by "natural selection." Other than imaginings, there is nothing to support that. Furthermore, citing science reports won't help you unless you get the real deal from the scientist himself. Not to say the scientists lie, but saying that unless you know exactly how they came about their conclusions, there's nothing to say.

That is what libraries and journals are for, that is how you get the real science evidence. You collect many small pieces of knowledge and when you fit them together, they come out just like the theory says they would and you have reinforcement for the theory.

 

[Pogo]

Why? Do you believe that God is imaginary in a similar way to leprechauns?

Personally yes, I don't believe either one exists outside of human imagination, but that is not actually the same as believing they don't exist. Either one might but the descriptions make them seem very highly unlikely and so I don't think about them.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes I do... Do you believe they are fake? Can you prove they are if you do?

I also believe in fairies, elves and trolls? What of it?

thanks for answering...you believe leprechauns, fairies, elves and trolls exist.

 

[YoursTrue]

Personally yes, I don't believe either one exists outside of human imagination, but that is not actually the same as believing they don't exist. Either one might but the descriptions make them seem very highly unlikely and so I don't think about them.

You don't believe leprechauns exist outside of human imagination but you also say it's not actually the same as believing they don't exist. That's ok for you, take care and -- have a good one!

 

[Pogo]

thanks for answering...you believe leprechauns, fairies, elves and trolls exist.

Trolls even leave evidence we can see. Go out and pick all the rocks in a field then come back in the spring and you will see all the new rocks the trolls pushed up. You will never see the trolls though because they are underground.

 

[YoursTrue]

Trolls even leave evidence we can see. Go out and pick all the rocks in a field then come back in the spring and you will see all the new rocks the trolls pushed up. You will never see the trolls though because they are underground.

lol, thanks. Leprechauns are in the same category, you think? Thanks for response.

 

[Pogo]

lol, thanks. Leprechauns are in the same category, you think? Thanks for response.

No, they sold out to General Mills so I don't think they are magic any more.

 

[The Hammer]

thanks for answering...you believe leprechauns, fairies, elves and trolls exist.

That would be a correct assumption.

Just as I believe in many Gods, Nature Spirits, Ancestor intervention etc.

 

[sayak83]

I am going to have to disagree with you somewhat on this. One can easily show that a lack of belief in a god is rational. But to absolutely say that there is no god. But here is the problem, @TagliatelliMonster 's post did not assert that no god exists. It was misread by both @leroy and @YoursTrue . The nonexistent teams was not a reference to God. The "winning a game that isn't known to exist" did.

I was making a far more general point. For any specific proposition P, the background likelihood of it being false is close to 1 and hence the background belief stance for a proposition P should be that it is False till evidence supporting it is provided.
I am talking about specific propositions here. Generic propositions like " there must be a few extrasolar planets that have alien life" are likely to be true as it is a generalization over a vast probability space of trillions of planets. But a proposition that " This specific planet out there has this specific form of life" would be likely to be false by default. Etc.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Trolls even leave evidence we can see. Go out and pick all the rocks in a field then come back in the spring and you will see all the new rocks the trolls pushed up. You will never see the trolls though because they are underground.

I did my share of that growing up. It is true.

 

[sayak83]

Thank you, that is the probability argument I was trying to articulate for @leroy.
Mind if I copy it to him?

Yes go ahead.

 

[Subduction Zone]

excuse me? do you believe leprechauns are real? If not, why not?

Why did you dodge his question?

How about this? Do you believe God exists? If not, why not?

For the same reason that I do not believe in Bigfoot and pixies. Their is no reliable evidence for any of them and they all appear to be manmade stories.

 

[sayak83]

So then in the future, it would be realistic for you to support what you say by evidence. And the evidence, as it is said in a court of law, can't be hearsay. So do you, or do you not, believe in God.

Unlike in the court of law, in the philosophy of knowledge ( the topic of what justifies a true belief) hearsay evidence is also evidence, albeit of a weak kind. This is because a report you hear from, say, a 100 people about the reality of some proposition ( say a cougar has been sighted in the locality) should and does increase the probability that this proposition ( there is a cougar roaming around near you) is true than before you heard those reports.
I did not understand your second question. I do not believe in your concept of God and you do not believe in my concept of God. That you already know. Where is this going?

 

[YoursTrue]

Why did you dodge his question?

For the same reason that I do not believe in Bigfoot and pixies. Their is no reliable evidence for any of them and they all appear to be manmade stories.

How am I dodging his question? I'm glad to see how you all answered --