What do Atheists mean about ‘No Evidence for God’

[Tristesse]

Obviously, sniper, if someone is making the claim, they expect or at least want you to believe that claim.

 

[Tristesse]

How would you refute his claim? If I say I have an invisible elf in my pocket, how can you refute my claim? Do you have evidence that I don't?

am i suppose to believe him? demand that he produce the elf, i would.

where is your elf? now who's the liar?

you say: No, I haven't. I do think it would make an interesting thread, but it's irrelevant here. Do you see why?

IRRELEVANT? then why do you keep asking for it? again, contradicting youself

btw, i can see that i am intimidating you. name calling? childish, why dont you just take your toys and go home?

Aw, but what if he starts saying things like, "it's a transendent elf, outside of space and time." Do you then have the burden of proof to disprove his claim?

 

[Autodidact]

How would you refute his claim? If I say I have an invisible elf in my pocket, how can you refute my claim? Do you have evidence that I don't?

am i suppose to believe him? demand that he produce the elf, i would.

You see, you put the burden of proof back on him to demonstrate that the elf exists. That is what tristesse is trying to explain to you--the same applies to God. You are making the claim, and we are demanding that you produce the God.

where is your elf? now who's the liar?

Where is your God? Who's the liar?

you say: No, I haven't. I do think it would make an interesting thread, but it's irrelevant here. Do you see why?

IRRELEVANT? then why do you keep asking for it? again, contradicting youself

What is irrelevant here is the atheist evidence for the lack of God. It is irrelevant here, because the issue is the theist evidence for God. That's the point.

btw, i can see that i am intimidating you. name calling? childish, why dont you just take your toys and go home?

I haven't said anything that is not true--unlike you.

What does your religion have to say about telling lies about other people? Is it moral, in your view?

I'm sure you'd like me to stop asking you these devastating questions, but I'm enjoying our discussion. I just don't appreciate you telling a lie about me, and not having the decency, honesty or humility to admit your mistake.

 

[sniper762]

I love you Auto! If you were a rockstar, I would be first in line to throw my panties onstage.

 

[Autodidact]

I love you Auto! If you were a rockstar, I would be first in line to throw my panties onstage.

I appreciate your admiration, but would appreciate honesty more.

 

[bhaktajan]

Let the equivocation time begin!

This seems to a very well progressing Thread.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Attention Atheists & Theists!

I think I found a True-ism, that both parties will be hardpressed to deny; and the proof is there ---and it proves/represents both sides of the argument simultaneous:

We admit there is no God & We faithfully adhere to the traditions of a God ---We must "Keep the Faith(s)!!!" ----But we know Demigods (whence: demagouge) Exist!

But we know Demigods (whence: demagouge) Exist!
But we know Demigods (whence: demagouge) Exist!
But we know Demigods (whence: demagouge) Exist!
And we know our place(s) among them.

Warning: "Don't mess with the Demigods" ---or you may be "Fired!"
Warning: "Don't mess with the Demigods" ---or you may be taken to "Tax Court"

Please no kidding.

 

[Magic Man]

autodict, lets see your "evidence" that substanciates your atheism.

There's no evidence necessary. I assume you don't need any evidence for your lack of belief in faeries or leprechauns. Why would you expect me to have evidence for my lack of belief in gods?

 

[Magic Man]

auto, regardless of your twisted conception of the meaning of evidence, it IS what provides PROOF

asking for it is ALL you have. the evidence that you demand from me is also demanded of you.

it seems like neither of us can supply it, so looks like we have a draw. back to square 1.

No, you don't have a draw. What you have is you making a claim and refusing to support it by asking the other person to prove you wrong. If I said "Human beings actually have 4 arms", I'm guessing you wouldn't believe me unless I supported it with evidence. Do you feel you would need any special evidence to disbelieve my claim?

The problem is that you're so caught up in your religious beliefs, that you fail to see that it's you who needs to supply evidence, not those who reject your ideas.

So, care to supply evidence for your god?

 

[Dezzie]

How about we turn this question around to this: "“I am not an Athiest because there is evidence of God". What is the evidence? Our morals? This doesn't necessarily stem from God.

 

[nrg]

Which is in line with my (untaken) invitation-

No, you asked for a rule of thumb that would place individual arguments on a scale from one to ten. I explained that logic can't do that, you can only play two arguments against each other. Sure, we do know some things that have infinite justifications behind them, but they're not really applicable to what we're discussing. They're the tools to start reasoning at all in logic.

The ‘scenario’ reflects a desire to demonstrate- “philosophy gave us logic, which in turn gave us the scientific method”....but is seems the basic Math of probability is less appealing than “discussing the real issue”-“ If one of the horses turned into Beelzebub”(???)

What does anything you said have to do with real math? There's no threshold something has to cross to be considered impossible to happen. You aren't misunderstanding the law of large numbers and the law of averages, are you?

If- "All horses except for one falling is still something that can be explained without the need of a massive ammount of assumptions" that would place the event closer to 1 than 10 (yes? no?...1 being probable/no suspicion 10 being improbable/high suspicion”.)

What happens to the Stewards sense of probability/suspicion if the same thing happens in the next race...all horses fall except one?

Why are you so interested in an algorithm to determine how propable something is and how suspicious you should be? It has no bearing what so ever in mathematics or logic, and certainly not the scientific method. Everything should be tested, and you should play it out against competing explanations.

Nope, prayer is to nebulous for "a working model for explaining what's possible and not possible"...horses are solid and will do just fine.

Uh, to nebulous? Do prayers have any sort of effect? If the answer's yes, you need a workable model to explane it, otherwise it's faith. If you can't predict when it will and will not work, you can't possibly know that it does work.

Let's use your example of the falling horses: if you can't create a working model and explane why the horses fell, and use that model predictively and get the same result when you mirror the circumstances, it smells like cheating.

 

[bhaktajan]

workable model to explane it, otherwise it's faith.

But, the sun will rise tommorow ---we pre-arrange that all will proceed as planned. And it does.

But, I do not who nor why it works like clock work.

If I am going on a long journey . . . should I use the toilet first? . . . but I don't have to "Go" now . . . I can't stop the trip to crap, why don't I produce a duece when it's most advantagaous to my plans? Am I not the controller of all I survey?

We must learn from our mentors.
Remember what was learnt from George:

GEORGE COSTANZA:

Well, after dinner last week, she invites me back to her apartment.
Well, it's this little place with this little bathroom. It's like right there, you know, it's not even down a little hall or off in an alcove. You understand?

Well, it's this little place with this little bathroom. It's like right there, you know, it's not even down a little hall or off in an alcove. You understand?

There's no... buffer zone. So, we start to fool around, and it's the first time, and it's early in the going. And I begin to perceive this impending... intestinal requirement, whose needs are going to surpass by great lengths anything in the sexual realm.

So I know I'm gonna have to stop. And as this is happening I'm thinking, even if I can somehow manage to momentarily... extricate myself from the proceedings and relieve this unstoppable force, I know that that bathroom is not gonna provide me with the privacy that I know I'm going to need...

JERRY: This could only happen to you.

GEORGE: So I finally stop and say, "Tatiana, I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but I think it would be best if I left".

So I'm dressing and she's staring up at me, struggling to compute this unprecedented turn of events. I don't know what to say to reassure this woman, and worst of all, I don't have the time to say it.

The only excuse she might possibly have accepted is if I told her I am in reality Batman, and I'm very sorry, I just saw the Bat-Signal. It took me 3 days of phone calls to get her to agree to see me again.

Seinology.com :: Scripts :: 16-The Chinese Restaurant

 

[Wombat]

I either don't understand what you're driving at....

I don't see how I can make it simpler-"The invitation is to establish what we would mutually agree to be within the realms of probability/mere chance...and what would be considered improbable/beyond chance"

... or why it would be relevant.

Because you have asserted that all phenomena/events can be explained as natural, without God...that would be ungoverned, without interference, random, mere chance.

To determine a potential event outside the realms of mere chance (ie a highly suspicious event) we would need to establish (even as rough rule of thumb) what is statistically probable and what is an anomaly that prompts/requires further investigation.

 

[bhaktajan]

we would need to establish (even as rough rule of thumb) what is statistically probable

Would this be the Antithesis of Poor people in developed nations suffering from diebetes and over-use of pain-killers and of processed nutrient-less denuded-foods Pop-Culture?

 

[Comicaze247]

First off, I just wanna clarify that I'm not an atheist. I'm more Agnostic-Pagan-Buddhist-something-or-other.

When an Atheist says “I am an Atheist because there is no evidence for God”, what do they mean?

Exactly that.

We have the world, life, consciousness, love, information, the ability to talk, think, and have morals.

And what does that have to do with "God"?

That all had to come from somewhere.

Agreed.

The reality is 80% of the world believes in God, so the world we see and touch must have some inherent evidence built into it.

1) Just because a majority believes something doesn't mean it's right. The entire world used to believe the world was flat and that everything revolved around the Earth. Not figuratively either.
2) One of the biggest reasons that Christianity is one of the biggest religions is because of the message that is misinterpreted as "spread your beliefs to everyone whether they like it or not." The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, Manifest Destiny, etc.

For example when we see a painting we know there must be a painter so naturally when we see the world we know there must be a creator.

So . . . just because something exists means that a sentient, all-powerful being made it? There's no justification for that.

I suspect what they mean is God hasn’t stood in front of them and spoke directly to them or that they can’t see God with their eyes.

From my experience when I left Catholicism, I noticed many contradictions in the Bible as well as contradictions in the basic teachings. Such as "love thy neighbor . . . unless they're gay." That, among many other things, convinced me that if there was something Divine out there, it wasn't the Christian concept of "God." So I decided to stop labeling myself as Catholic, so as to not confuse people and also out of respect to the people who actually hold those beliefs.

Blind belief causes you to become a sheep. Hell, Christianity encourages you to be a sheep and follow your "shepherd." Allowing yourself to be a sheep and have all the thinking done for you makes you subject to being manipulated. I chose to take control of my own life and make my own decisions based on my own judgment.

Yet they believe in evolution, most of them which they can’t see happening, they rely on forensic science not observable science for that, why not rely on forensic science for the evidence for God?

There is no forensic evidence for "God" . . .

The earth and life is the evidence.

"The bed exists, and therefore, I exist." Does that make sense to you?
"The earth exists, and therefore, some all-powerful, bipolar man who lives up in the sky exists."
Sure, in both cases, it's possible that there's a connection, but there's nothing showing that there is. It's an incredibly long jump to the conclusion that there is.

 

[Wombat]

No, you asked for a rule of thumb that would place individual arguments on a scale from one to ten..

Did I?.....:no:.....(Care to quote?)

My invitation had nothing to do with "individual arguments".
It had everything to do with individual assesments of 'probability'.

The scenario was- a ten horse race in which all horses bar one fall and fail. The invitation was "for a rule of thumb" assesment of 'probability'...ie Would such an event be seen as quite natural/chance....or improbable/suspicious.

(And to that simple question one cannot even get a straight answer from participating atheists......go figure)

What does anything you said have to do with real math? There's no threshold something has to cross to be considered impossible to happen...

The question I'm posing has >everything< to do with "real math".

You roll cats eyes in a Casino and nobody blinks an eye, you roll them twice and everybody cheers, you roll them three times and everybody oooh ahhhs amazing and Security is on its way....you roll them four times and your in the Managers office while the dice are examined BECAUSE you have crossed the "threshold something has to cross to be considered impossible (or likley) to happen"

>Probability<......>everything< to do with "real math" and real life.

You aren't misunderstanding the law of large numbers and the law of averages, are you?.

Well...you go right ahead and provide the singular or "large numbers" quote that demonstrates my "misunderstanding".

Because so far all I have done is asked a simple question that none seem able to comprehend or willing to answer-
Ten horse race, all fall bar one, probability on 1-10 scale.

Why are you so interested in an algorithm to determine how propable something is and how suspicious you should be?.

Because there are "thresholds something has to cross to be considered impossible (or likley) to happen" and when that occurs it is deemed to be an anomaly... something outside the realms of mere chance.

To turn the question
Why is everyone so interested in avoiding and obfuscating the simple probability determining question? ie Turning invitation for simple 'rule of thumb' measure into "an algorithm to determine how propable something is"???....Why not just answer the question and see what comes next instead of blocking with falsification?

It has no bearing what so ever in mathematics or logic, and certainly not the scientific method..

Tell that to the guys at the Casino when you keep rolling cats eyes...and good luck with that.

A thousand words of irrelevant second guessing and obfuscation to cut through before we even get close to the simple question-

Let's use your example of the falling horses: if you can't create a working model and explane why the horses fell, and use that model predictively and get the same result when you mirror the circumstances, it smells like cheating.

WHAT!!!!???.......ONE isolated race in which all horses bar one fall and your leaping to "it smells like cheating"!!!!!!!??????

"create a working model and explane why the horses fell" ????....The "working model" is called the global horse racing industry and history....the "explane"(?) is that it was identified as 'jumps'....hurdles. It is not unheard of for an entire field of horses to fall...and yet (as a Steward) you would leap to "it smells like cheating" on the basis of one race?
ABSURD....tell me again about >my< "misunderstanding the law of large numbers and the law of averages,"...and, please, don't ever become a Bookmaker or Steward.

No...If it happened 'once' there would be no suspicion on the racetrace because it has happened before...it is not a unique or unusual event.

But if it happened twice in a row the Stewards would suspect "it smells like cheating" and possibly close the track...and if it happened three times in a row they would certainly close the track.

Is there any fundamental disagreement with the above 'rule of thumb' assesment of probability from anyone?

 

[Wombat]

Would this be the Antithesis of Poor people in developed nations suffering from diebetes and over-use of pain-killers and of processed nutrient-less denuded-foods Pop-Culture?

I have no idea what any of that would have to do with establishing basic rule of thumb statistical probability or the need to do so.

 

[Autodidact]

I don't see how I can make it simpler-"The invitation is to establish what we would mutually agree to be within the realms of probability/mere chance...and what would be considered improbable/beyond chance"




Because you have asserted that all phenomena/events can be explained as natural, without God...that would be ungoverned, without interference, random, mere chance.

No, natural, or material, or without God, does not mean random or mere chance. They are completely different. If you want to make an argument that "determined by the laws of nature" means the same thing as "completely random", give it a shot.

To determine a potential event outside the realms of mere chance (ie a highly suspicious event) we would need to establish (even as rough rule of thumb) what is statistically probable and what is an anomaly that prompts/requires further investigation.

I guess, if we were talking about random chance. We're not. We're talking about an absence of magic, or supernatural explanations.

 

[nrg]

But, the sun will rise tommorow ---we pre-arrange that all will proceed as planned. And it does.

But, I do not who nor why it works like clock work.

And if you try to explane it, it will all be guess work unless you read up on how the sun will work.
Even if you don't know what causes the sun to rise, you can explane the light it emits to the Earth with a workable model.

I'm not talking about needing a workable model to prove something exists. But you need a workable model to explane how processes and procedures are indeed doing anything.

Did I?.....:no:.....(Care to quote?)

If you didn't, than it really does have absolutely nothing to do with mathematics. Mathematics is the study of quantity, shape, structure and change and logic is the study of reasoning. Your asking for a rule of thumb to determine what's propable, and we determine propability through inductive reasoning which is logic, and then quantify it's statistical pattern (if it follows a statistical pattern), which is math. We can then apply a statictical analysis of it, but we need to use inductive reasoning in order to see a if a pattern emerges. That's not math, it's logic.

My invitation had nothing to do with "individual arguments".
It had everything to do with individual assesments of 'probability'.

And that's not possible. If you're talking arguments, you need to compare it to another model that explanes it to satisfaction. If it's alone in explaning something satisfactorily, it's an unchallenged champion.

(And to that simple question one cannot even get a straight answer from participating atheists......go figure)

Given the laws of physics, and that we assume it was a normal horse track and every horse and jockey tried to win, the probability of all but one horse falling is less than 50 %. Was that the answer you wanted? Or did you want me to say "when something with a less than X% chance of happening does, indeed, happen something's suspicious"? That answer is not something that applies to what we're discussing because this is ontology, not statistics.

The question I'm posing has >everything< to do with "real math".

You roll cats eyes in a Casino and nobody blinks an eye, you roll them twice and everybody cheers, you roll them three times and everybody oooh ahhhs amazing and Security is on its way....you roll them four times and your in the Managers office while the dice are examined BECAUSE you have crossed the "threshold something has to cross to be considered impossible (or likley) to happen"

Dice follow statistical patterns established through inductive reasoning. Horse races, base ball games and lotteries do too. What statistical pattern do prayers follow? Or God? Or miracles?

>Probability<......>everything< to do with "real math" and real life.

"Everything"? Probability theory is it's own branch in mathematics for a reason, you know.

Because there are "thresholds something has to cross to be considered impossible (or likley) to happen" and when that occurs it is deemed to be an anomaly... something outside the realms of mere chance.

Whoa, stop, stop, stop! Anomalies are events that happen outside the statistical pattern, not things that are outside the realms of chance. Learn the difference.

I can buy the first lottery ticket ever produced in a major, multi million player lottery, win, and it would still be within the realms of chance and randomness.

Tell that to the guys at the Casino when you keep rolling cats eyes...and good luck with that.

A thousand words of irrelevant second guessing and obfuscation to cut through before we even get close to the simple question-

The guys at the casino are measuring the statistical probability of there being a cheater amongst them (something which can be established through inductive reasoning) and the statistical probability within the game. That's how they spot anomalies.

WHAT!!!!???.......ONE isolated race in which all horses bar one fall and your leaping to "it smells like cheating"!!!!!!!??????

"create a working model and explane why the horses fell" ????....The "working model" is called the global horse racing industry and history....the "explane"(?) is that it was identified as 'jumps'....hurdles. It is not unheard of for an entire field of horses to fall...and yet (as a Steward) you would leap to "it smells like cheating" on the basis of one race?

Again, if there's no workable model explaining why all those horses fell. If the laws of physics can explane it (for example, if all the horses didn't "fall" into the ceiling, it can) it's possible.

Wether or not the likelihood of them cheating is larger than the statistical likelihood of the horses falling is larger or not is a completely different question, one you didn't ask for. You asked about individual assessments, and that's not possible, you have to measure the likelihood in opposing explanations. I'm going to have to repeat this again, aren't I?

 

[Wombat]

..... it really does have absolutely nothing to do with mathematics. Mathematics is the study of quantity, shape, structure and change and logic is the study of reasoning. Your asking for a rule of thumb to determine what's propable, and we determine propability through inductive reasoning which is logic, and then quantify it's statistical pattern (if it follows a statistical pattern), which is math. We can then apply a statictical analysis of it, but we need to use inductive reasoning in order to see a if a pattern emerges. That's not math, it's logic.

What a pile of pointless contradictory semantic equivocation and obfuscation.
You begin with- &#8220;it really does have absolutely nothing to do with mathematics&#8221;
Follow up with-&#8220; then quantify it's statistical pattern (if it follows a statistical pattern), which is math&#8221;
HELLO! The thing that has &#8220;absolutely nothing to do with mathematics&#8221; involves &#8220;statistical pattern, which is math&#8221; !!!???
And conclude &#8220;We can then apply a statictical analysis of it, but we need to use inductive reasoning in order to see a if a pattern emerges. That's not math, it's logic&#8221;
It&#8217;s &#8220;logic&#8221; applied to &#8220;math&#8221;...you cannot perform &#8220;statistical analysis&#8221; without applying fundamentals of math/logic.
But clearly you can write an entire post that begins asserting &#8220;absolutely nothing to do with mathematics&#8221; concedes the role of maths within the first paragraph, goes on to call for (Math free?) &#8220;statistical analysis&#8221; and demonstrates no reliance on &#8220;logic&#8221; whatsoever.
The rest of the post was more of the same &#8216;logic&#8217; free zone-


Originally Posted by Wombat
"My invitation had nothing to do with "individual arguments".
It had everything to do with individual assesments of 'probability'."

And that's not possible. If you're talking arguments, you need to compare it to another model that explanes it to satisfaction. If it's alone in explaning something satisfactorily, it's an unchallenged champion.

It's a >QUESTION< not an "arguement"...the >question< does not have "another model that explanes it to satisfaction"...the >question< is not "explaining" anything therefore is not "alone in explaning something satisfactorily".

&#8220;And that's not possible. If you're talking arguments......&#8221;

It&#8217;s &#8220;not possible&#8221; that the invitation/question was not an &#8220;individual argument&#8221;....!!!???

I ask a question. You call the question an &#8220;argument&#8221;. I reject the notion that any &#8220;argument&#8221; has been put forward. You insist the question is an argument "explaning something satisfactorily, it's an unchallenged champion".[/quote].
????????!!!!!!???????????????!!!!!!!!!!???????
I recognise that the rest of the post is more of the same pointless Twilight Zone obfuscation over non issues and wave goodby.
:run:

 

[nrg]

What a pile of pointless contradictory semantic equivocation and obfuscation.
You begin with- &#8220;it really does have absolutely nothing to do with mathematics&#8221;
Follow up with-&#8220; then quantify it's statistical pattern (if it follows a statistical pattern), which is math&#8221;
HELLO! The thing that has &#8220;absolutely nothing to do with mathematics&#8221; involves &#8220;statistical pattern, which is math&#8221; !!!???

The process of actually finding the pattern at all is not math, it's logic. Quantifying it is. Get it?

And conclude &#8220;We can then apply a statictical analysis of it, but we need to use inductive reasoning in order to see a if a pattern emerges. That's not math, it's logic&#8221;
It&#8217;s &#8220;logic&#8221; applied to &#8220;math&#8221;...you cannot perform &#8220;statistical analysis&#8221; without applying fundamentals of math/logic.
But clearly you can write an entire post that begins asserting &#8220;absolutely nothing to do with mathematics&#8221; concedes the role of maths within the first paragraph, goes on to call for (Math free?) &#8220;statistical analysis&#8221; and demonstrates no reliance on &#8220;logic&#8221; whatsoever.

What are you talking about and asking for?

I've been under the assumption that you want to know how to deem things probable, and how we apply it to the existance of God (that is what we're talking about, right?). You can't do that with math, you need to use logic. We don't have any axioms to work with yet, and it's essential before you start computing. It's that - freaking - simple!

Are you, or are you not, asking for a method relevant to the discussion regarding the probability that miracles, prayers, God and all that has something to it or are you discussing probability theory with inductively proven axioms? They're not the same thing!

It's a >QUESTION< not an "arguement"...the >question< does not have "another model that explanes it to satisfaction"...the >question< is not "explaining" anything therefore is not "alone in explaning something satisfactorily".

All right, then there's a simple answer to your question: no.

Unless you have a working model and inductively proven axioms and patterns, you can't judge something's probability. Once you do supply just that, we can get the ball rolling.