There are about 1000 gods. Is that evidence against God?

[thomas t]

I had to think about your posts a bit....

Off course that is the game.... Without evidence, it's impossible to evaluate the probability of any of them.

I said, if someone assigns probablilities to any of them... it's on them to provide the evidence.
I think, this still stands.
Wait a minute, you're making an allegation about probabilities yourself:

They are all equally probable in the sense that they are all backed by the same type of non-evidence.

What an irony.
But since it's a positive claim ("all equally probable") please go ahead and show that none of them is backed by true evidence. Without asking me for evidence for them, please.

Go ahead and show the absence of positive evidence for the entirety of the God claims made...
You know that I do think that at least one religion has evidence on their side.... but I like to discuss this somewhere else. (Not in this thread, please).
This thread is about purported evidence against a God.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I think it isn't.
a large quantity of made up gods cannot serve as evidence for the absence of a real one, I think.

They serve as evidence for exactly what I stated. That gods can and have been made up. So until their is good evidence for one, it makes no sense to accept any of it - because currently, they all have the same caliber of evidence, and some of them must necessarily be make believe.

if you are only reacting if God reveals himself in a extremely clear manner, God has every reason to not reveal himself to you, I think.
If he did, he would run into a totally unprepared human being.

As I have stated, I wouldn't even believe my own experience of "seeing" or "hearing" God. I couldn't even trust my own senses to have produced an accurate picture for me. There would need to be some form of evidence that could be shared and verified by any number of people. Otherwise it might very well have just been my own brain failing to interpret reality in a correct manner.

Compare this to the money insurance companies are making.
They make money.... even if for their customers, the evidence for a potential loss of money is low.
This is how I understand insurance companies' business and how it works.

This is a ridiculous analogy. You're comparing "God" to "statistically low probability events." The problem here is the we have MOUNDS of evidence that those "statistically low probability events" actually occur to people IN REALITY. We have precisely ZERO evidence (of the same caliber we have for those types of events) that God actually exists in reality. Apples being compared to oranges here. Oh, excuse me, apples compared to invisible, intangible, unscented oranges.

God might take this attitude as red flag to himself, too.

Meaning that, based on the evidence, God shouldn't even believe in HIMSELF ? On that point we are in complete agreement, friend.

 

[thomas t]

Meaning that, based on the evidence, God shouldn't even believe in HIMSELF ?

that wasn't what I said.
I said: if you put the threashold for evidence in favor of God extremely high... God has every reason to not reveal himself to you, I think.

This is a ridiculous analogy. You're comparing "God" to "statistically low probability events." The problem here is the we have MOUNDS of evidence that those "statistically low probability events" actually occur to people IN REALITY. We have precisely ZERO evidence (of the same caliber we have for those types of events) that God actually exists in reality. Apples being compared to oranges here. Oh, excuse me, apples compared to invisible, intangible, unscented oranges.

No it's not a ridiculous analogy, I think.
It referred to your claim that you won't take into account a potential God,
"until there is evidence of this extremely high caliber,".

Let me argue this way:

Either the world is created or it is not. By world I mean the whole thing: the universe we live in plus potential other elements that might exist before or outside of it or not.

The moment you say that you won't react to the possibility that there might be a God, unless "there is evidence of this extremely high caliber," (as you said in your last post).... this comes across as accepting the proposition of an uncreated world as the default position.
The proposition of an uncreated world, however, does not have any more evidence on its side than a proposition of a created world.
That was my point, I could have been more clearer though.

 

[McBell]

... show that none of them is backed by true evidence.

Here is the sum total of all the objective empirical evidence for them:



...

Without asking me for evidence for them, please.

Since there is no objective empirical evidence for them, there is no need to ask you for something we already know you can not provide.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I had to think about your posts a bit....
I said, if someone assigns probablilities to any of them... it's on them to provide the evidence.
I think, this still stands.

It does.
I assign it a probability of very unlikely.
Because things that have no evidence are unlikely.

If the probability of a thing is in proportion to the amount and quality of evidence in support of it, then things that have no evidence are improbable.

Wait a minute, you're making an allegation about probabilities yourself:

Yes. Based on evidence. In this case, the lack of any.

Is bigfoot unlikely? Yes.
But why? Well, because of the total lack of evidence.
There's no evidence for any of the supposed sightings. Nor is there any evidence of bigfoot like creatures anywhere. That's it. That's why bigfoot is unlikely.

How are gods different?

What an irony.
But since it's a positive claim ("all equally probable") please go ahead and show that none of them is backed by true evidence. Without asking me for evidence for them, please.

Why wouldn't I ask you for evidence for claims you believe are true?
I'm unaware of any good evidence for gods. I'm aware of many bad, and mutually exclusive (so they can't all be right), pieces of evidence though. Hearsay, unsupported anecdotes and such. But good evidence, the kind that is verifiable? Nope.

So indeed, if you have any, bring it.
Until then, I can only go by what I am aware of.
And I'm not aware of any good evidence. So why would I consider the claims likely?

They are all equally (un)likely as they are all backed by the same kind of bad evidence, and I'm not aware of any good evidence.

Go ahead and show the absence of positive evidence for the entirety of the God claims made...

I can only tell you that I am unaware of any such evidence.
Did I research every single religion that has ever been dreamed up by man? Off course not. That would take multiple lifetimes.

But I'ld gather that if there were good evidence for any of them, then I wouldn't have to go hunt for that information but it would be brought to me by the dynamics of society and education.

Like how I don't need to go hunt for positive evidence for relativity or newtonian laws of motion or pythagores, or plate tectonics or... And if I would nevertheless have to go hunting for it myself, such things are generally easy to find. In fact, the better the evidence is, the more common knowledge it will be and the easier it will be to find it and read up.

So based on the fact that such supposed good evidence for gods doesn't seem to be "common knowledge" nor "easy to find", and given that in all these years that I've frequented religious forums and other discussion platforms nobody ever pointed me to such evidence... I think it's safe to say that it probably doesn't exist.


If you think you have such evidence, I invite you to share it.
Until then, I see no reason to assume that "it is out there" and that I simply haven't found it yet.
But I'm open minded. I'm not dogmatic. I'm very willing to change my mind if so required by being presented with good evidence.

You know that I do think that at least one religion has evidence on their side.... but I like to discuss this somewhere else. (Not in this thread, please).
This thread is about purported evidence against a God.

Super.
Create a thread and tag me.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The moment you say that you won't react to the possibility that there might be a God, unless "there is evidence of this extremely high caliber," (as you said in your last post).... this comes across as accepting the proposition of an uncreated world as the default position.

Couple things....

The default position, most certainly is not the belief in some undefendable, unsupportable, magical being.
When something is unknown, the default position is "we don't know". That's one...


Two... Right out the gates, "nature dun it" is more likely then "god dun it". Even only simply for the fact that nature demonstrably exists.

Again, the "position" is that it is unknown. To say "nature dun it" is more likely then "some other thing for which there is no evidence that it is even a thing", is not a claim that nature in fact dun it. It's instead, only a tentative statement on what is more plausible given the information we have.

Nature is an actual candidate, as nature exists and is known to produce all kinds of phenomena.
Gods aren't even candidates, as they can't even be shown to be real.

The proposition of an uncreated world, however, does not have any more evidence on its side than a proposition of a created world.

I'll accept that for the sake of argument.
Now apply occam's razor.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

No it's not a ridiculous analogy, I think.
It referred to your claim that you won't take into account a potential God,
"until there is evidence of this extremely high caliber,".

The moment you say that you won't react to the possibility that there might be a God, unless "there is evidence of this extremely high caliber," (as you said in your last post).... this comes across as accepting the proposition of an uncreated world as the default position.

Guess what though? I will admit that we shouldn't accept evidence that the world wasn't created unless it is also of an extremely high caliber! Can you admit as much for your ideas of God? I don't think you can. You refuse to relent on this tack of just assuming that God did everything. I don't think you could bring yourself to admit that WE DON'T KNOW, and therefore we shouldn't accept the premise that "God created it" until we have sufficient evidence. Just as we shouldn't eliminate the possibility that it was "created" until we also have sufficient evidence to rule that idea out.

However, within this vein of ideas, there are no signs of "creation", let's remember. No "tool marks", no "signature," none of God's "DNA" (or anything comparable) to be found. There is also plenty of evidence for how natural geological processes work alongside gravity, and the physical formation of our world is much what one would expect given long-term adherence to these physical principles. So there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the world was formed over time by the same principles that continue to govern the formation of all the other planetary bodies we have the ability to observe. This is already loads more cogent, reality-based and shareable evidence gathered over the last couple centuries for how the world may have formed than theists have been able to muster for "God" in all the thousands of years that humans have been kicking around their ideas of gods.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Atheists often cite the great abundance of gods..

Yes...They do. But they're free to say/cite whatever they want. So who cares?

Just because an atheist asserts something does NOT make it so (which is kind of ironic, since that's what they often like to say about people of faith!)

Even funnier...I've been on forums like this a lot...And you know WHO is obsessed with God?

Atheists.

They spend a LOT of time thinking about (and speaking against) something they claim does not exist.

And that's odd.

For example...Unless I'm watching a MARVEL movie, I don't waste much time thinking about Thor. because Thor is a myth.

But atheists really like to surround themselves with like-minded people and talk about how obvious it is that God doesn't exist!

To quote the Bard: "Methinks the Lady doth protest too much."

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

But atheists really like to surround themselves with like-minded people and talk about how obvious it is that God doesn't exist!

Guess how much of my time I would devote to thinking about God if a theist had never brought it up? Go ahead... take a guess. I dare you.

Point being - if you don't like hearing my objections to your ideas about God (which, judging by the snarky, foolish nature of your post, I guarantee you are entirely butt-hurt over how often people reject your silly ideas), then there is a super-duper EASY solution. And that is: KEEP IT TO YOURSELF. Seriously... you all just stop talking about it, and then I will stop talking about it - GUARANTEED.

 

[thomas t]

Guess what though? I will admit that we shouldn't accept evidence that the world wasn't created unless it is also of an extremely high caliber!

ah, thank you for clarifying.
There was no way for me to figure that out before...

With regard to the question of whether or not evidence for a God can be found.... let's leave it to another thread, please. I have a different opinion than yours in this case... but please let's leave this debate out from this thread.
Thank you.

So there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the world was formed over time by the same principles that continue to govern the formation of all the other planetary bodies

actually, I was talking about the evidence concerning the origins of the universe at t=0...
but since you say you expect the same amount of evidence for both propositions, I am totally fine with this.

you all just stop talking about it, and then I will stop talking about it - GUARANTEED.

Thanks to God, there are often Christians around talking about the Highest

 

[thomas t]

I can only tell you that I am unaware of any such evidence.

I appreciate your honesty. I appreciate an honest debate, thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Right out the gates, "nature dun it" is more likely then "god dun it". Even only simply for the fact that nature demonstrably exists.

the bolded part is not evidence (just in case somebody reading along might mistake it as evidence in favor of an uncreeated world). It's appeal to plausibility at best.

Again, the "position" is that it is unknown. To say "nature dun it" is more likely then "some other thing for which there is no evidence that it is even a thing", is not a claim that nature in fact dun it. It's instead, only a tentative statement on what is more plausible given the information we have.

ok, but whereas this might seem plausible for you... it doesn't seem plausible for me, though.
So we differ on this one.

How are gods different?

from Bigfoot? A creator God would be relevant.

Nature is an actual candidate, as nature exists and is known to produce all kinds of phenomena.
Gods aren't even candidates, as they can't even be shown to be real.

have another candidate. My watch. It exists....

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Thanks to God, there are often Christians around talking about the Highest

Yeah - and most of the ones I am surrounded by (Christians, mostly) REALLY don't like it when you question their assumptions or disagree with the solidarity of their conclusions. Which is exactly why I always tell them that if they don't like that, then they should keep their ideas about God to themselves.

If they are allowed to assume that God exists for purposes of conversation, then I am allowed to assume that He doesn't for those same purposes. The main difference is that I completely and utterly enjoy ripping religious ideas to shreds and treading through the broken, scattered remains. It brings me true, unabashed enjoyment to do so. I'm not going to lie. So, while religious types are extremely uncomfortable when their ideas are challenged, I absolutely relish such challenges. To the point that it doesn't really work both ways here, unless the theist also likes such challenges, and then what a time we might have! Otherwise though, for the ones that don't like the opposition to their thoughts, or being put into uncomfortable situations - the only advice I can give is for them to stay quiet... talk amongst themselves. Don't bring the ideas to my doorstep - because if you do, I'm going to use every ounce of my wit to knock you into a corner and keep you there.

 

[Nivek001]

I did.

And God proved to me that he doesn't exist in such a way as to be indisputable.

Complete proof that God doesn't exist.

How does you saying you did something proof of anything other than you said something?

This just simply boils to a matter of I said vs. you said and neither of us presented anything other than our word.

So, when it comes to if there is any third party who is interested in finding out if I am right or if you are regarding a God who wants us to rely on faith not evidence, there is only one way to find out, and it’s not through any amount of evidence.

That is because it’s possible that a lack of evidence is due to willful intent by that God to withhold evidence because if we are to rely on faith we cannot have evidence that the world can see.

The only way for that third party to find out is to take up the challenge of studying the Gospel and trying out the teachings in faith and see what happens. This includes asking God in prayer for assurance.

 

[Tiberius]

How does you saying you did something proof of anything other than you said something?

This just simply boils to a matter of I said vs. you said and neither of us presented anything other than our word.

So, when it comes to if there is any third party who is interested in finding out if I am right or if you are regarding a God who wants us to rely on faith not evidence, there is only one way to find out, and it’s not through any amount of evidence.

That is because it’s possible that a lack of evidence is due to willful intent by that God to withhold evidence because if we are to rely on faith we cannot have evidence that the world can see.

The only way for that third party to find out is to take up the challenge of studying the Gospel and trying out the teachings in faith and see what happens. This includes asking God in prayer for assurance.

And what you fail to realise is that I've already done what you said, and it failed. So I reject your claims. I reject them because I have tried them for myself and seen for myself that they do not work.

 

[Cooky]

Yeah - and most of the ones I am surrounded by (Christians, mostly) REALLY don't like it when you question their assumptions or disagree with the solidarity of their conclusions. Which is exactly why I always tell them that if they don't like that, then they should keep their ideas about God to themselves.

If they are allowed to assume that God exists for purposes of conversation, then I am allowed to assume that He doesn't for those same purposes. The main difference is that I completely and utterly enjoy ripping religious ideas to shreds and treading through the broken, scattered remains. It brings me true, unabashed enjoyment to do so. I'm not going to lie. So, while religious types are extremely uncomfortable when their ideas are challenged, I absolutely relish such challenges. To the point that it doesn't really work both ways here, unless the theist also likes such challenges, and then what a time we might have! Otherwise though, for the ones that don't like the opposition to their thoughts, or being put into uncomfortable situations - the only advice I can give is for them to stay quiet... talk amongst themselves. Don't bring the ideas to my doorstep - because if you do, I'm going to use every ounce of my wit to knock you into a corner and keep you there.

Ooh, do it, do it, I want to watch.

 

[night912]

How is it a strawman argument? Because you said so?

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted.

The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.
Source: Straw man - Wikipedia

This is my claim.

There's no teachings that say that one should abandon/ignore evidence.

I made that claim in objection to what you think is a teaching in Christianity; "a God who wants us to rely on faith instead of evidence."

The burden of proof lies with one who claims fact, and that is not what I claimed. I claimed what I believe to be true. What’s ironic is that you claim proof matters but you have no problem choosing to not take the challenge not because there is proof that the challenge will bring in false results. In fact you make a decision based on no evidence whatsoever.

So, in your post #250, all you did was gave a strawman argument, nothing that actually addressed my claim. So like I said, I don't have the burden of proof on a claim that I never made.

And I never claimed that "proof" matters. I have no problem taking on honest challenges. I don't take on dishonest challenges, but will expose it as being dishonest.

It’s an open ended challenge and instead of taking up the challenge to gain first-hand experience as to whether you received any results you make up excuses to not gain any experience and not gain any knowledge that comes would come with it.

There's no need to take up your dishonest challenge, I already gain some knowledge about you and your character. Hopefully you learned something from this experience. But if you ignore what I said here, then you're going to remain ignorant of the truth regarding this issue.

The burden of proof lies with one who claims fact, and that is not what I claimed. I claimed what I believe to be true.

Much knowledge can be gain from what you said here, knowledge of your dishonest character and your lack of understanding of logic. It's the same with some people I've encountered. They're being dishonest with others and themselves by
making that excuse because they don't care about whether or not what they believe is actually true. They just want what they believe in, to be true. The burden of proof lies on whoever makes a truth claim. We don't claim "facts," we present "facts" because they are true.
If you claimed that what you believe is true, then the burden of proof still lies on you. You still made a truth claim, claiming that your beliefs are true.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

ok, but whereas this might seem plausible for you... it doesn't seem plausible for me, though.

You can believe what you want.
The fact remains: things that demonstrably exist are always more plausible candidates then things that don't demonstrably exist and which thus have to be assumed to exist. Assumed without evidence, without reason, without rational justification, without precedents. Assumed ONLY because of a priori religious beliefs.

from Bigfoot? A creator God would be relevant.

In terms of evidence and how the lack thereof for the positive claim, makes the whole thing unlikely.
Either you didn't comprehend the point being made or you are actively trying to dodge it.

Also, EVIDENCE is what would make god, or anything else, relevant. There is no such evidence. Claiming gods are relevant, doesn't make it so. Evidence does.

have another candidate. My watch. It exists....

Watches aren't known to produce all kinds of phenomena. Try again.

 

[thomas t]

Also, EVIDENCE is what would make god, or anything else, relevant. There is no such evidence. Claiming gods are relevant, doesn't make it so. Evidence does.

you asked where the difference is between Bigfoot and God.
The difference as I see it was: if they exist, the Bigfoot is not relevant, God is.
As a consequence, the question becomes how intensely we look out for evidence for these two, in my opinion.

Watches aren't known to produce all kinds of phenomena. Try again.

oh was that required?
nature at t=0 (Big Bang) isn't known to produce things, either.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

you asked where the difference is between Bigfoot and God.

No, that's not what I asked at all.
You should read with a bit more attention.
Here's what I actually said:

Is bigfoot unlikely? Yes.
But why? Well, because of the total lack of evidence.
There's no evidence for any of the supposed sightings. Nor is there any evidence of bigfoot like creatures anywhere. That's it. That's why bigfoot is unlikely.

How are gods different?


I wasn't comparing gods with bigfoot. I was comparing the likelihood of both in context of evidence.

So I'll rephrase the question such that you can't play this game of changing the actual point: How is the likelihood as determined by available evidence of gods different from the likelihood as determined by available evidence of bigfoot?

oh was that required?

Well I did mention it from the get-go. But you seem to have a habit of ignoring the bits that don't suit your narrative.

nature at t=0 (Big Bang) isn't known to produce things, either.

If it would, we wouldn't be having this conversation because at that point, the origins of the universe wouldn't be an unknown.

 

[Nivek001]

And what you fail to realise is that I've already done what you said, and it failed. So I reject your claims. I reject them because I have tried them for myself and seen for myself that they do not work.

How do you figure I failed to realize you said you already did that when I pointed out it’s a my word (a claim of doing that ended with positive results) vs. your word (a claim of doing the same thing that produced negative results) scenario? Your reading comprehension needs work.

Anyhoo, like I pointed out if there is a third party who wants to find out who is right here between you and me, there is a way to do that, and it’s not by way of looking at available evidence.

That is because this deals with belief in a God who wants us to rely on faith instead of evidence the whole world can see, which would mean that it’s possible that the reason for there being a lack of available evidence is due to such a God withholding that evidence on purpose. After all, if you have such evidence then there is no faith to rely upon.

So, if there is a third party who wants to know who is right and honest in their claims, then the only way for that third party to know is to act on faith for themselves in study and trying out the teaching that are believed to have come from such a God. This even includes seeking assurance from that God if such a God is there and the teachings are true through prayer and then that third party can then see for themselves who is right.