Lack of Evidence

[It Aint Necessarily So]

if both have lack of evidence, isn't what is chosen to accept merely based on personal choice?

The choice I made was to trust reason and evidence, and forsake thinking by faith, which requires skepticism for all claims, and rejection of those no sufficiently supported by evidence. That is. I chose strict empiricism as the only acceptable means of deciding if a proposition was true or not. Given that, agnostic atheism is the only logical conclusion possible in the absence of compelling evidence for a deity. So yes, my position is based on a personal choice, but not a choice about gods, but about how to determine what is true about the world.

The problem with empiricists is that they would look for empirical/scientific evidences to a metaphysical subject.

That's not a problem. That's a virtue. It keeps one from accepting and believing wrong guesses, which is most of them.

You've misstated it a bit, however. Empiricists are generally not looking for evidence for metaphysical claims, which I understand as being synonymous with unfalsifiable claims, since he already knows that no such evidence will ever be forthcoming. What he is saying is that without evidence, he won't join the faith-based thinker in the unsupported belief in such ideas. This empiricist rejects the claim that there is any aspect of reality out of reach of empiricism, and that what is claimed to exist but not be detectible can be rejected for lack of evidence whether that be a god, or heaven, or an afterlife, or any other such thing. When the believer say that these things are real, just not detectible, I stop listening. That is what faith sounds like, and it takes faith to believe such a thing, and I reject the idea that faith can be a path to truth.

Notice that rejecting a claim is not the same as affirming that it is false, merely insufficiently supported, and therefore not fit to be believed until sufficient support can be adduced. Yes, I know how this attitude frustrates and confounds many theists, and often evokes an emotional response, but that's on them. If one can't see the merit of this epistemology, oh well. I do.

people's answered will reflect their version of god both atheist and theist alike.

This atheist doesn't have a version of God. The theists do, and they can tell us what kind of god they are referring to. I have rejected them all to date for lack of compelling evidence for any of them. Does it make sense that I would have or need a clear idea of what a god is without experiencing one?

I had this discussion on Facebook recently, and was criticized for not having a clear picture of what I was rejecting as an atheist. I don't understand that attitude. You (the theist) tell me what YOU'RE claiming exists, and I'll see if you have a compelling argument. You can't say that a God like Yahweh or Allah exists, an interventionalist god that leaves revelations on earth and damns? Maybe you believe in one that answers prayer. Can't demonstrate either of those? Then I don't accept the claim they exist. Perhaps you're advocating for a deist God, who made the world then disengaged from it. What's your argument? Oh, just that? Now, that's the god I'm rejecting. Should I pick a definition of a god and say I reject that? What's the point?

I think there is evidence for God. God is the creator of life and this world, we can see the creations, therefore we have evidence for the creator. Also Bible is evidence for God, because it indicates God has influenced in life.

I don't see either of those as evidence for a god. Evidence for a god would be some discovery better explained by positing a supernatural intelligent designer. The world and scripture can be accounted for naturalistically, and serve equally well as evidence for that understanding. Irreducible complexity in biological systems would be evidence for an intelligent designer, because it woud be better explained by positing intelligence rather than blind physical process, but not the world or scripture.

 

[firedragon]

That's not a problem

Then you dont understand science.

 

[ChristineM]

I would say that this is evidence that there is no *good* god. it is consistent with an evil creator.

It certainly has something to.say about the usual claims for gods *good*

I forgot to add the clincher e=mc2.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The choice I made was to trust reason and evidence, and forsake thinking by faith, which requires skepticism for all claims, and rejection of those no sufficiently supported by evidence. That is. I chose strict empiricism as the only acceptable means of deciding if a proposition was true or not. Given that, agnostic atheism is the only logical conclusion possible in the absence of compelling evidence for a deity. So yes, my position is based on a personal choice, but not a choice about gods, but about how to determine what is true about the world.



That's not a problem. That's a virtue. It keeps one from accepting and believing wrong guesses, which is most of them.

You've misstated it a bit, however. Empiricists are generally not looking for evidence for metaphysical claims, which I understand as being synonymous with unfalsifiable claims, since he already knows that no such evidence will ever be forthcoming. What he is saying is that without evidence, he won't join the faith-based thinker in the unsupported belief in such ideas. This empiricist rejects the claim that there is any aspect of reality out of reach of empiricism, and that what is claimed to exist but not be detectible can be rejected for lack of evidence whether that be a god, or heaven, or an afterlife, or any other such thing. When the believer say that these things are real, just not detectible, I stop listening. That is what faith sounds like, and it takes faith to believe such a thing, and I reject the idea that faith can be a path to truth.

Notice that rejecting a claim is not the same as affirming that it is false, merely insufficiently supported, and therefore not fit to be believed until sufficient support can be adduced. Yes, I know how this attitude frustrates and confounds many theists, and often evokes an emotional response, but that's on them. If one can't see the merit of this epistemology, oh well. I do.



This atheist doesn't have a version of God. The theists do, and they can tell us what kind of god they are referring to. I have rejected them all to date for lack of compelling evidence for any of them. Does it make sense that I would have or need a clear idea of what a god is without experiencing one?

I had this discussion on Facebook recently, and was criticized for not having a clear picture of what I was rejecting as an atheist. I don't understand that attitude. You (the theist) tell me what YOU'RE claiming exists, and I'll see if you have a compelling argument. You can't say that a God like Yahweh or Allah exists, an interventionalist god that leaves revelations on earth and damns? Maybe you believe in one that answers prayer. Can't demonstrate either of those? Then I don't accept the claim they exist. Perhaps you're advocating for a deist God, who made the world then disengaged from it. What's your argument? Oh, just that? Now, that's the god I'm rejecting. Should I pick a definition of a god and say I reject that? What's the point?



I don't see either of those as evidence for a god. Evidence for a god would be some discovery better explained by positing a supernatural intelligent designer. The world and scripture can be accounted for naturalistically, and serve equally well as evidence for that understanding. Irreducible complexity in biological systems would be evidence for an intelligent designer, because it woud be better explained by positing intelligence rather than blind physical process, but not the world or scripture.

What god did you reject, though?

Without a definition in mind, I wouldn't know what you meant.

 

[Suave]

Joe believes a god does exist.
John doesn't believe a god does exist.

Fact is there is lack of evidence for a god existing and lack of evidence for a god not existing because science has no stance either way.

So my question is if both have lack of evidence, isn't what is chosen to accept merely based on personal choice?

According to Christian Matrixism, we are living in a simulated universe, if this has an underlying grid, then it is a testable hypothesis.

Some physicists have proposed a method for testing if we are in a numerical simulated cubic space-time lattice Matrix or simulated universe with an underlying grid.
[1210.1847] Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation

Based on the assumption that there'd be finite computational resources, a simulated universe would be performed by dividing up the space-time continuum into individually separate and distinctive points. Analogous to mini-simulations that lattice-gauge theorists conduct to construct nuclei based on Quantum Chromodynamics, observable effects of a grid-like space-time have been studied from these computer simulations which use a 3-D grid to model how elementary particles move and collide with each other. Anomalies found in these simulations suggest that if we are in a simulation universe with an underlying grid, then there'd be various amounts of high energy cosmic rays coming at us from each direction; but if space is continuous, then there'd be high energy cosmic rays coming at us equally from every direction.

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology
Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation
Silas R. Beane, Zohreh Davoudi, Martin J. Savage
(Submitted on 4 Oct 2012 (v1), last revised 9 Nov 2012 (this version, v2))

 

[QuestioningMind]

Joe believes a god does exist.
John doesn't believe a god does exist.

Fact is there is lack of evidence for a god existing and lack of evidence for a god not existing because science has no stance either way.

So my question is if both have lack of evidence, isn't what is chosen to accept merely based on personal choice?

Aside from the god claim what other significant claims do people accept based upon a lack of evidence that the claim is not true?

 

[AlexanderG]

Joe believes a god does exist.
John doesn't believe a god does exist.

Fact is there is lack of evidence for a god existing and lack of evidence for a god not existing because science has no stance either way.

So my question is if both have lack of evidence, isn't what is chosen to accept merely based on personal choice?

It may have been said already, but this gets to what you think a reasonable neutral starting position is. Namely:

1. Should we believe every claim we hear, until there is good evidence that it is false?
- or -
2. Should we disbelieve every claim we hear, until there is good evidence that it is true?

It seems clear that the second option is what the established principles of reason endorse. Going with the first option would lead to incoherence, belief in contradictions, etc. In general, I do see theists operate by (2) for almost everything in their lives, but then they make an exception for their religious beliefs by lowering their standards of reason and going with (1). As an agnostic atheist, I have consistent good standards for what I believe.

 

[SalixIncendium]

From the outside though, these just seem like claims for mystical experiences, and even were they compelling, a mystery means we can't make any objective assertions about it surely? I can't assert they didn't happen, but I can and must withhold belief.

I rarely talk about any such experiences except with those that approach me about them. Others I've interacted with who have had such experiences are typically the same with regard to discussing them.

There is no expectation for those "from the outside" to believe anything regarding such experiences, because I make no claims, make no assertions, and have no desire to prove anything to anyone else.

 

[Kooky]

I rarely talk about any such experiences except with those that approach me about them. Others I've interacted with who have had such experiences are typically the same with regard to discussing them.

There is no expectation for those "from the outside" to believe anything regarding such experiences, because I make no claims, make no assertions, and have no desire to prove anything to anyone else.

Are you certain that your mystical experiences directly come from the exact divine figure as it is being described in your holy text of preference by the established elites of your chosen faith, and not some other source, known or unknown?

I ask this because my impression of experiential evidence is that it's very often not clear what it is evidence for. I would strongly put forward the undeniability of the what, but the how and why I find rather more elusive, if not entirely absent.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Are you certain that your mystical experiences directly come from the exact divine figure as it is being described in your holy text of preference by the established elites of your chosen faith, and not some other source, known or unknown?

I'm certain of my experience. I have no inclination to discuss said experience in a debate venue beyond that, as it is not subject to what you perceive as "the exact divine figure as it is being described in [my] holy text of preference by the established elites of [my] chosen faith."

Also, said experience came long before any knowledge I had of my "holy text" of my "chosen faith."

 

[PruePhillip]

Joe believes a god does exist.
John doesn't believe a god does exist.

Fact is there is lack of evidence for a god existing and lack of evidence for a god not existing because science has no stance either way.

So my question is if both have lack of evidence, isn't what is chosen to accept merely based on personal choice?

There is not evidence for God, neither is there evidence against God.
You are ask to decide for youself.
It always a personal thing.
But if you DO chose to believe in God then you must prove God for
yourself, in your own life. And if you don't then your faith is in vain.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not necessarily. There are very acceptable philosophical arguments for the existence of God. The problem with empiricists is that they would look for empirical/scientific evidences to a metaphysical subject. These two are not the same. One is a repeatedly spoken of absurdity, that is to ask for scientific evidence for a God, and the other is a philosophical argument for God which is valid at least theoretically.

Thus the point is, it is not only a personal choice.

I always find it interesting when theists take even more hardcore anti-theistic positions than the average atheist.

You say that it would be absurd to ask for scientific evidence of God... i.e. that there can be no physical, empirical evidence of God.

This implies that absolutely anything that would be physical, empirical evidence of God if true is all necessarily false, including:

- every miracle claim.
- every "answered" prayer.
- the "revelation" of every "revealed" religion.
- every claim that the form of nature indicates design, or that a creator's "fingerprint" is on the physical universe.

I trust you recognize that most theists don't share your position.

 

[Ponder This]

Joe believes a god does exist.
John doesn't believe a god does exist.

Fact is there is lack of evidence for a god existing and lack of evidence for a god not existing because science has no stance either way.

So my question is if both have lack of evidence, isn't what is chosen to accept merely based on personal choice?

Regardless of the truth of the matter, I advocate for Free Will. People should make their choice freely, of their own will, without coercion.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Joe believes a god does exist.
John doesn't believe a god does exist.

Fact is there is lack of evidence for a god existing and lack of evidence for a god not existing because science has no stance either way.

So my question is if both have lack of evidence, isn't what is chosen to accept merely based on personal choice?

There is much evidence in science that implies the actions of God, regardless of (current) scientism and scientific skepticism. Remember that for millennia, scientists almost universally said science is observation of Creation.

 

[Sheldon]

There is much evidence in science that implies the actions of God,

Someone needs to tell scientists this, as like all the major news networks they seem to have missed it.

"the percentage of scientists who are unaffiliated with any religion is much higher than among the general public. Nearly half of all scientists in the 2009 Pew Research Center poll (48%) say they have no religious affiliation (meaning they describe themselves as atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular), compared with only 17% of the public."

In the elite US Academy of Science, the percentage of atheists is even higher, and broadly mirrors theistic belief among the general population in the US.

Remember that for millennia, scientists almost universally said science is observation of Creation.

Now that is just hilarious, a welcome moment of levity, kudos.

 

[Sheldon]

There is much evidence in science that implies the actions of God

"National Academy of Science is Godless to the Core–Survey"

"a recent survey published in the leading science journal Nature conclusively showed that the National Academy of Science is anti-God to the core... only 7.0% believed in a personal God. Belief in God and immortality was lowest among biologists."

It seems these elite scientists have missed this evidence, you should write to them.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Someone needs to tell scientists this, as like all the major news networks they seem to have missed it.

"the percentage of scientists who are unaffiliated with any religion is much higher than among the general public. Nearly half of all scientists in the 2009 Pew Research Center poll (48%) say they have no religious affiliation (meaning they describe themselves as atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular), compared with only 17% of the public."

In the elite US Academy of Science, the percentage of atheists is even higher, and broadly mirrors theistic belief among the general population in the US.



Now that is just hilarious, a welcome moment of levity, kudos.

Your "science says" is an appeal to authority fallacy and an ad populum fallacy both.

 

[BilliardsBall]

"National Academy of Science is Godless to the Core–Survey"

"a recent survey published in the leading science journal Nature conclusively showed that the National Academy of Science is anti-God to the core... only 7.0% believed in a personal God. Belief in God and immortality was lowest among biologists."

It seems these elite scientists have missed this evidence, you should write to them.

Appeal to authority and ad populum fallacies, now repeated by you two times.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Your "science says" is an appeal to authority fallacy and an ad populum fallacy both.

Disagree. You claim that there is, "much evidence in science that implies the actions of God." His implied argument is that if that were the case, scientists would be theists as much or more than the general population. But they're not. Au contraire. No fallacy there. The scientists are the authority on what the evidence means, and their relative numbers are what refute you.

 

[Sheldon]

Your "science says" is an appeal to authority fallacy and an ad populum fallacy both.

Firstly I made no such claim, I accept conclusions that the method reaches, based on the evidence, so this is yet another of your straw man fallacies. Secondly scientific facts are evidence based, and the method requires all data and conclusions be continuously scrutinised, by things like peer review. Even the most well established scientific facts, evidenced beyond any reasonable doubt, remain tentative and open to revision in the light of new evidence. So no, they are neither appeal to authority or bare appeal to numbers fallacies, which after weeks of explanation you clearly still don't care to understand.

FYI, I note again you didn't address my post or the context at all, quelle surprise. The real hilarity of course is you using another logical fallacy, to try and falsely discredit scientific facts, after making a bare appeal to the authority of science your self.

There is much evidence in science that implies the actions of God,

Care to site any? Or do you think tacking the word science onto your woo woo claim will lend it some gravitas in that rather obvious appeal to authority fallacy?