Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[Runewolf1973]

The argument is not that you haven't posted any evidence but that the things you have posted as evidence have not really qualified as such. That is, they are not sufficient to license belief in gods or any sort. I personally do not like to claim that believers have no evidence of the existence of their god(s). Almost every believer that I know feels very strongly that their faith is grounded in evidence, and not always just from personal experience.

But it is important to remember that many, if not most, atheists started out as theists and rejected theistic belief for what they also regarded as reasonable and credible evidence for rejection of theism. Each side spends a lot of time discounting or ignoring what the other side offers as "evidence" for its case.

Ultimately, belief and skepticism do not hang on any specific arguments of the sort that we see in these forums. We tend to hold a great many beliefs that shore up or sustain the general belief in theism or rejection of theism. There is no silver bullet argument or piece of "evidence" that is going to suddenly turn an atheist into a theist or vice versa. Such changes in fundamental belief come gradually after one considers many arguments that bear on a broad range of interlocking and mutually supporting beliefs about the nature of reality and gods.

I think that was very well said. I wish I was as good with words.

 

[Alceste]

The argument is not that you haven't posted any evidence but that the things you have posted as evidence have not really qualified as such. That is, they are not sufficient to license belief in gods or any sort. I personally do not like to claim that believers have no evidence of the existence of their god(s). Almost every believer that I know feels very strongly that their faith is grounded in evidence, and not always just from personal experience.

But it is important to remember that many, if not most, atheists started out as theists and rejected theistic belief for what they also regarded as reasonable and credible evidence for rejection of theism. Each side spends a lot of time discounting or ignoring what the other side offers as "evidence" for its case.

Ultimately, belief and skepticism do not hang on any specific arguments of the sort that we see in these forums. We tend to hold a great many beliefs that shore up or sustain the general belief in theism or rejection of theism. There is no silver bullet argument or piece of "evidence" that is going to suddenly turn an atheist into a theist or vice versa. Such changes in fundamental belief come gradually after one considers many arguments that bear on a broad range of interlocking and mutually supporting beliefs about the nature of reality and gods.

That's quite a realistic and well-considered point of view you have there. Are you sure you're in the right thread?

 

[Vile Atheist]

It sure seems to me that the "God" you all are agreeing to, now, is the same idea of "God" that I have been posing all along in this thread.

Not exactly what I meant. I meant I can accept this belief as being among the most probable of all the versions of god that are presented by theists.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I guess you missed the "right now" part. Also, most of those wars were politically or ethnically motivated.

First of all, what difference does it make "right now", 5 minutes ago, or 400 years ago? These are still religious people who were killing each other. It defeats whatever point you were trying to bring up with that fallacious statement.

Second of all, there is plenty of sectarian violence in the Middle East between Shia and Sunnis. And you can kind of count the conflicts in Ireland between Catholics and Protestants as having a strong religious element, though I wouldn't quite say it's the direct cause.

Third of all, your point was that religious people do not kill each other. "Right now", at least. So even if you were right - and you're plainly not - it doesn't matter if they were politically or ethnically motivated. It's still an example of religious people killing each other.

Fourth of all, your last statement is just plain false. Please, I beg of you, from my list, point out the conflicts you think were politically or ethnically motivated. Remember your claim was that "most" were not religiously motivated. So I expect you list "most" of my list.

 

[Vile Atheist]

That doesn't make any sense. How does labeling the unknown, 'unknown' (or a mystery), make it not unknown, anymore?

It makes absolute no bloody sense because you are trying to present evidence for the "unknown". That's the purpose of this thread. If you know the unknown, then it is no longer unknown.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I'm just telling you what I'm seeing from this side of the discussion. And if you weren't so biased, you'd see it, too.

So far, every time someone claims I haven't posted any evidence, their reasoning, on the rare occasions that they actually offered any, was that I haven't "proven it empirically". And I keep repeating over and over that evidence is not proof. I don't need to prove it empirically. But they aren't listening, because they CAN'T ACCEPT ANY EVIDENCE. Their position is based on there being none, and by god none is what they're going to have.

Granted I have only read approximately 25-30% of the pages of this thread, but from what I have seen no empirical evidence was presented. I'm not talking about proof because I know you cannot prove the existence of God.

What you present is either just plain scientifically wrong, or logically fallacious. Even if you made an argument that we can all accept, it has to be a proposal that is verifiable and falsifiable and testable empirically. It has to be sufficient evidence to warrant a belief in something so extraordinary.

 

[Vile Atheist]

The argument is not that you haven't posted any evidence but that the things you have posted as evidence have not really qualified as such. That is, they are not sufficient to license belief in gods or any sort. I personally do not like to claim that believers have no evidence of the existence of their god(s). Almost every believer that I know feels very strongly that their faith is grounded in evidence, and not always just from personal experience.

But it is important to remember that many, if not most, atheists started out as theists and rejected theistic belief for what they also regarded as reasonable and credible evidence for rejection of theism. Each side spends a lot of time discounting or ignoring what the other side offers as "evidence" for its case.

Ultimately, belief and skepticism do not hang on any specific arguments of the sort that we see in these forums. We tend to hold a great many beliefs that shore up or sustain the general belief in theism or rejection of theism. There is no silver bullet argument or piece of "evidence" that is going to suddenly turn an atheist into a theist or vice versa. Such changes in fundamental belief come gradually after one considers many arguments that bear on a broad range of interlocking and mutually supporting beliefs about the nature of reality and gods.

Very good points.

 

[Commoner]

The argument is not that you haven't posted any evidence but that the things you have posted as evidence have not really qualified as such. That is, they are not sufficient to license belief in gods or any sort. I personally do not like to claim that believers have no evidence of the existence of their god(s). Almost every believer that I know feels very strongly that their faith is grounded in evidence, and not always just from personal experience.

But it is important to remember that many, if not most, atheists started out as theists and rejected theistic belief for what they also regarded as reasonable and credible evidence for rejection of theism. Each side spends a lot of time discounting or ignoring what the other side offers as "evidence" for its case.

Ultimately, belief and skepticism do not hang on any specific arguments of the sort that we see in these forums. We tend to hold a great many beliefs that shore up or sustain the general belief in theism or rejection of theism. There is no silver bullet argument or piece of "evidence" that is going to suddenly turn an atheist into a theist or vice versa. Such changes in fundamental belief come gradually after one considers many arguments that bear on a broad range of interlocking and mutually supporting beliefs about the nature of reality and gods.

The lack of logical fallacies in this post truly disgusts me. Clearly a lack of effort.

 

[PureX]

The argument is not that you haven't posted any evidence but that the things you have posted as evidence have not really qualified as such.

Nothing I post is going to "qualify" with people who SIMPLY CAN'T HAVE ANY. I can see that, now. All I'm going to get are more and more insults, and slurs, and rude, meaningless comments because we have come to an impasse. Those who have based their atheism on there being "no evidence at all" for the existence of God are not going to accept anything from anyone as evidence. This is apparent. And the more time I waste trying to clarify and defend the evidence, the more loud and nasty the insults and slurs will become.

Each side spends a lot of time discounting or ignoring what the other side offers as "evidence" for its case.

We're over 20 pages into this thread and I have yet to see anyone offer any evidence against the existence of God. Atheists don't seem to offer anything. Or propose anything. They just want to attack whatever theists offer.

Ultimately, belief and skepticism do not hang on any specific arguments of the sort that we see in these forums. We tend to hold a great many beliefs that shore up or sustain the general belief in theism or rejection of theism. There is no silver bullet argument or piece of "evidence" that is going to suddenly turn an atheist into a theist or vice versa.

I understand that. And I was not trying to change anyone's mind. But until now, I hadn't realized that atheism came down to such rigid bias. It really does remind me of so many discussions I've had with religious fundamentalists who simply could not hear any form of reason that threatened their religious paradigm. They had no actual faith in their religion at all. And so they had to protect it with a blind and absolute rigid denial of any idea that countered it.

Such changes in fundamental belief come gradually after one considers many arguments that bear on a broad range of interlocking and mutually supporting beliefs about the nature of reality and gods.

It's a wonder we humans survive at all.

 

[themadhair]

This analogy is ridiculously biased.

Care to point out where it fails? You have this habit of making statements like the above rather than addressing the actual content or point being raised.

I've clearly posted many times an example of a religious/theological based prescription that does clearly work for people.

And you ignore where it doesn’t work (i.e. for me) and you ignore where the same positive effects are achieved by rejection (i.e. like for me). In doing so you highlight that your purported effects for the crap rationalisation they are. The analogy I present is using the same fallacious reasoning you are – it is just doing in a scenario where the ridiculousness of that reasoning is evident.

Aren't you embarrassed to post such blatantly biased nonsense?

Taking the same reasoning you are using (appeal to consequences) and applying it to a situation where it fails for the purpose of highlighting the logical flaw within that reasoning is biased? This is simply you, yet again, sidestepping inconvenient points.

Or are you really that blind to it?

I hate crap reasoning and I’m calling you on your use thereof.

Nothing I post is going to "qualify" with people who UNDERSTAND BASIC REASONING AND LOGICAL THOUGHT.

Fixed that for you.

who have based their atheism on there being "no evidence at all" for the existence of God are not going to accept anything from anyone as evidence.

Cute way to avoid the critical failings in what you have presented. I’m sensing a pattern here.

And the more time I waste trying to clarify and defend the evidence, the more loud and nasty the insults and slurs will become.

Let me be blunt here. You attempted a comparison between a field of science and your theology (which failed horribly and served to highlight more than little misunderstanding of scientific methodology on your part) – and you method of defending this comparison was to actually argue that science and theology were very different, and that your theology should not be held up to scientific standards. That isn’t clarifying or defending, that’s simply trying to rationalise a flawed argument by throwing crap into the air.

We're over 20 pages into this thread and I have yet to see anyone offer any evidence against the existence of God.

There are two points that need to made here, and I think they are both charges against the honesty of your discourse here:
1) This thread is not about evidence against god. You know this because you started the thread. For you to throw this up is dishonest – and you should know this.
2) If such attempts to present counter-evidence were to be attempted I have no doubt you would hide behind the vagueness of the term ‘god’ as you have done so in the past. You actually attempted to argue to me in the past that your use of the term ‘god’ was as a description of the ‘mystery of the universe’ when challenged on it. What you are doing, and I have pointed out this semantic sleight of hand previously to you, is putting the term ‘god’ onto this mystery so you can then inject your theology while avoiding having to justify any of it. In this thread you outlined the basis of a working hypothesis for your god-concept which fails due to it being falsified (the ‘prediction’ didn’t work with me) and being founded on a giant appeal to consequences (which you are deliberately ignoring) – these are evidence against the god concept you have presented in this thread.

Atheists don't seem to offer anything.

That’s the point. Do you seriously think that holding a lack of belief in one particular idea should offer something???

They just want to attack whatever theists offer.

I don’t attack theistic ideas because I’m an atheist – I attack them because I don’t like crap reasoning, and so far that is all that has been offered.

But until now, I hadn't realized that atheism came down to such rigid bias.

I freely admit my bias towards logic and sound reasoning while holding a bias against crap rationalisations.

And so they had to protect it with a blind and absolute rigid denial of any idea that countered it.

To be pretty honest the ideas you have presented in this thread have been ripped to shreds. If anything it is you that is displaying a rigid denial by continuously engaging in avoidance, illogical reasoning and absurd rationalisations*.

* I’m reiterating this rationalisation because I’m still astounded that you cannot see the problem with it. You made a comparison between a field of science and your theology. And you way to defend it was to argue that your theology cannot be held to the same standards as science. This is an unbelievably absurd rationalisation – but you seem to think that our pointing it out is some sort of ‘bias’.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I will name my first-born "themadhair" in your honour, sir.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

Purex, we don't have to put in evidence for the non-existence of god, it would be a waste of our time. Also, two things, the topic thread you started is "evidence for god" evidence against god isn't necessary and would be irrelevant in this thread. Secondly why would I spend time trying to dismiss something that I myself don't believe?

 

[Vile Atheist]

I don't really get why theists demand that atheists produce evidence God doesn't exist. It's self-evident God doesn't exist. We don't see, touch, smell, taste, or hear God. There is no logical reason to believe God exists, other than to accept it as an almost virtually impossible possibility. Even if God exists, I doubt with every neuron in my head that it will have the properties of the Judeo-Christian God.

It doesn't make anyone more moral, the existence and variety of religions all over the world suggest it is a socially evolved phenomenon, we can explain neurologically why people believe in Gods. Why would anyone bother to believe in God once you step back and question it.

But perhaps what makes me laugh most is PureX's shouts of "BIAS! BIAS! YOU ATHEIST SCOUNDRELS WILL NOT CONSIDER MY ****-POOR AND CONTRADICTORY AND LOGICALLY FALLACIOUS STATEMENTS AND MY APPEALS TO CONSEQUENCE!!!". Well, PureX, have you ever considered the possibility of God not existing? Have you ever looked at an atheist's arguments honestly? I expect a blanket and dishonest "yes" to this question. The reality is most atheists were at some point theists. We've seen what theism has to offer, we've already considered its "evidence" and if it were significant or persuasive enough to us, we'd still be theists. So your sobbing cries of bias are really insignificant.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

oh i consider what if god exist all the time. Still, I don't believe with all my brain he does.

 

[Vile Atheist]

oh i consider what if god exist all the time. Still, I don't believe with all my brain he does.

Exactly. That's the true position of a skeptic. A skeptic tries to believe something exists and objectively examines the evidence for and against a claim and decides its validity. If after examining evidence the skeptic finds it lacking or conflicting or what have you, he/she might safely dismiss the claim until new evidence comes in to support it.

 

[Perfect Circle]

I'm just telling you what I'm seeing from this side of the discussion. And if you weren't so biased, you'd see it, too.

I love how everyone is biased when they don't see things the way you do...

 

[Alceste]

Exactly. That's the true position of a skeptic. A skeptic tries to believe something exists and objectively examines the evidence for and against a claim and decides its validity. If after examining evidence the skeptic finds it lacking or conflicting or what have you, he/she might safely dismiss the claim until new evidence comes in to support it.

For me at least, there's also the fact that I have a pretty refined natural BS detector. I'm immediately suspicious of illogical or poorly reasoned arguments, and always have been. One of the major benefits of RF for me has been to learn the actual names of all the logical fallacies I see so often in the rest of the world. Now I associate particular strategies of maintaining an irrational belief with particular people. For example, my dad is pretty good with logic generally, but the absolute king of the straw man. For that reason, it's completely impossible to have a meaningful discussion with him on any topic where we start from a position of disagreement.

I will never in a million years understand why theists so often insist that their belief is "logical", or "evidence-based". It simply isn't. It's not as if logic and reason are a naturally superior way of thinking to the creative imagination. Logic and reason are good at establishing facts, but that's pretty much it. Creative imagination is good with the contemplation of meaning, and at communicating emotion, and as a catalyst for personal growth. We all need a little of both. We of course need to know what the facts are, but we also need to know who we are, and where we're going.

 

[Vile Atheist]

For me at least, there's also the fact that I have a pretty refined natural BS detector. I'm immediately suspicious of illogical or poorly reasoned arguments, and always have been. One of the major benefits of RF for me has been to learn the actual names of all the logical fallacies I see so often in the rest of the world. Now I associate particular strategies of maintaining an irrational belief with particular people. For example, my dad is pretty good with logic generally, but the absolute king of the straw man. For that reason, it's completely impossible to have a meaningful discussion with him on any topic where we start from a position of disagreement.

I will never in a million years understand why theists so often insist that their belief is "logical", or "evidence-based". It simply isn't. It's not as if logic and reason are a naturally superior way of thinking to the creative imagination. Logic and reason are good at establishing facts, but that's pretty much it. Creative imagination is good with the contemplation of meaning, and at communicating emotion, and as a catalyst for personal growth. We all need a little of both. We of course need to know what the facts are, but we also need to know who we are, and where we're going.

I have a hypothesis that it's because theists are otherwise rational people. They would normally accept science UNTIL it conflicts with their theology. And when it does, they feel they must continue to validate it in a pseudo-scientific way, to at least attempt to reconcile their beliefs with their (otherwise) rationality. I could be wrong, though.

 

[PureX]

I used to respect the atheist's position. I have no respect for it, now.

If any of you can manage a polite conversation, I'll be happy to engage, otherwise I'm done with this thread.

 

[Fatihah]

There are several threads on which people have been arguing about the "evidence" or lack thereof of the existence of "God". These threads were not started with this subject in mind, so I'm starting a new thread to keep them from being sidetracked.

Keep in mind that evidence is not proof. For example, the fact that Bob could have left work unnoticed and killed his wife, and then returned to work, resulting in his fellow workers claiming that he was on the job all day is not proof that Bob killed his wife. It is evidence, however, in that it provides a reasonable possibility.

Also, let's keep this a polite and civil discussion/debate. Your posts will be ignored, otherwise.

Response: The proof of the existence of God is obvious. For if any of us looked around us right now at any of the things in existence, each any every object is a creation from a creator. Show me anything around you right now which was not created? You can't. We can't. It came to be by being created. Even if you say that something evolved, the process of evolution itself is a form of creating. For the only way possible for something to exists is it being created. That being said, the universe and life itself had to have a creator. The question to ask is who or what the creator is. As a muslim, I say that the creator is none other than Allah(swt).