There is no God...???

Cú Giobach

Want to throw this question in for discussion.
Is the statement "There is no God" a valid one.
I believe it is.
Though it is impossible to prove the non existence of a god, it has never been proven he/she/it does exist (yet).
Humans used to believe a god made plants appear from the ground, we now know differently,
people used to believe a god physically formed the planet Earth, we now know differently, and so on,
There are a great number of things, all slowly eroding the claimed deeds of a deity. ie the evidence is mounting towards non existence.
There is a lot of evidence pointing towards non existence ie the non answering of prayers, scientific explanations for the supposed deeds, no sight nor sound etc,
and none pointing towards existence.

People can claim anything they want, from the existence of a deity to a "celestial teapot" a la Dawkins.

Is it valid therefore, to say for a claim, where there is evidence against, but none for , that "There is no X", until proven otherwise.

Sam Vimes

One of the main problems with a statement like "there is no god" is that the word god has a different meaning for every person that uses it. The statement "there is no christian god" is a very different one to "there is no Hindu god" or "there is no celestial teapot god". Very often people even redefine their own understanding of the word to make it easier to defend like when a Christian makes the case for an otherwise undefined "first cause" as if an argument for a first cause in any way supports the notion of an all powerful human like being who hates teh gheys and rose from the dead 2000 years ago.

That god is a slippery bugger and it's pretty much impossible to pin down a single definition of it in order to say that it doesn't exist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

Sam Vimes

There are certain gods that it is possible to say don't exist though, for example the god of the young earth creationists was disproved a few hundred years ago but they've had their fingers in their ears ever since.

Zillah

Depends on the context. In day day to conversation yes, "There is no God" is perfectly acceptable. In a more formal debate, perhaps, saying "Such a God is highly unlikely" would be more appropriate.

MagicMarker

''There is no God'' is just easier than saying ''I'm 99.999999999999999% sure that there is no God''.

threeleggedhors

I think and hope as man/womankind progresses that scinetific reasoningwill take over from superstition and hearsay. If we poured as much resources into building say hospitals as we did into building enormous, majestic monuments to a higher power in the past then we'd all be a lot better off. It is a reasonable statement to say "There is no God" but maybe with add on "unless proven otherwise". The whole notion of religion and God needs to be challenged. While having a discussion with a friend recently he suggested that it's inappropriate to challenge someones belief but I put it to him that if someone sat beside him and told him that they had a firm belief in the toothfairy how could you just let that person go on believing in something that has absolutely no evidence of existance. We owe it to our fellow human beings point out flaws in their thoughts. Don't worry I know just how condescending that sounds but it simply must be done imo.

Pygmalion

MagicMarker wrote: »

''There is no God'' is just easier than saying ''I'm 99.999999999999999% sure that there is no God''.

This, and on that note no-one is being clever by responding with "Prove it" when I say "I believe there is(/are) no God(s)" or "I don't believe in (a) God(s)" (especially when it's not even worded in a way that implies I know for sure).

I'm just not bothered with "I believe the probability of a supernatural and omnipotent being or beings is very low and choose to dismiss it as being too small to worry about".

Nemi

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Humans used to believe a god made plants appear from the ground, we now know differently,

I think the problem is in that word 'know'.

At any stage all we're doing is suggesting plausible explanations that accord with whatever facts are available. But, as we're never in the position of having accumulated all facts, all statements are conditional.

We can opt for what seems to be the simplest answer. But there no particular reason to say the simplest answer is the best. It could be simply wrong.

deise go deo

where there is evidence against, but none for ,

I would like to see this evidence against.

I beleive there is a god. I cant prove gods existence so I would never state ''There is a God'' Only ''I beleive in a god''

As far as I know there is no proof that god dosent exist, Nor have I come across any possible method of finding out which statement would be true.

Whit that in mind I concider the position of Atheists to be their opinion, not proven fact and as such I feel that representing ones own opinion as fact is arrogent.

I ask what makes your opinion more valid than mine?

pH

I guess if you're prepared to accept "There are no vampires" or "There are no leprechauns" as valid statements then you can accept "there is no God".

If you're not prepared to ever utter the words "there is no ...." because of some philosophical mindset that nothing can be completely disproven, then "god" is just one of millions of things you can't end the sentence with.

On another note, science does disprove the existence of testable things all the time, yet the opposite is true, you can never absolutely prove the positive. For example scientists were able to run tests, which produced negative results, thus proving that Lumiferous Aether didn't exist.

Turtwig

We cannot say there is no God but only in the sense that we cannot say there are no vampires, fairies etc. or statements among the likes of "The universe was created 5 seconds ago","The planet earth is not flat" "The moon does not orbit earth". etc . We cannot absolutely prove such statements. However, we can prove them to such a point that they are considered fact. So yes, you can say God does not exist. Just beware that when it comes to supernatural phenomena people's standards of logic drops dramatically and they tend to have the absurd assumption that supernatural phenomena need to be disproven before they should stop saying they exist. So for the reasons of communication I recommend avoiding such statements as they simply create too much confusion. I understand what you mean, but I doubt many more will.

Turtwig

deise go deo wrote: »

I would like to see this evidence against.

I beleive there is a god. I cant prove gods existence so I would never state ''There is a God'' Only ''I beleive in a god''

As far as I know there is no proof that god dosent exist, Nor have I come across any possible method of finding out which statement would be true.

Whit that in mind I concider the position of Atheists to be their opinion, not proven fact and as such I feel that representing ones own opinion as fact is arrogent.

I ask what makes your opinion more valid than mine?

Very simple really. Using your line of logic, a person accused of a crime has to prove their innocence. In normal court we assume the person is innocent until proven guilty. Your version of court argues that there is no absolute proof he isn't guilty so we should instead assume the person to be guilty.

If I'm not mistaken you're equally likely to fall under the "burden of proof" claim with "there is no god" as with "there is a god", right? Or is there a difference?

Formally I suppose "highly unlikely" is better

deise go deo

Malty_T wrote: »

Very simple really. Using your line of logic, a person accused of a crime has to prove their innocence. In normal court we assume the person is innocent until proven guilty. Your version of court argues that there is no absolute proof he isn't guilty so we should instead assume the person to be guilty.

No, My case is to do with someone putting their opinion of something that is absoulitly unprovable forward as fact.

I think to do so is arrogent. What makes their assessment of the situation any more valid than mine?

It has nothing to do with court.:rolleyes:

Cú Giobach

deise go deo wrote: »

I would like to see this evidence against.

I beleive there is a god. I cant prove gods existence so I would never state ''There is a God'' Only ''I beleive in a god''

As far as I know there is no proof that god dosent exist, Nor have I come across any possible method of finding out which statement would be true.

Whit that in mind I concider the position of Atheists to be their opinion, not proven fact and as such I feel that representing ones own opinion as fact is arrogent.

I ask what makes your opinion more valid than mine?

Nice to see you here.;)

Through out history the claimed deeds of a deity have been slowly eroded, examples of which I gave in the OP, This is mounting evidence towards non-existence of said deity.

Each generation gives their own attributes to, and makes their own claims about a deity, which shows the concept is constantly changing, consequentially a deity is a human construct not an immutable one.


My opinions about a "god" are based on reason and logic,
yours are based on something you have been told by someone, who was told by someone, who was told........etc
stretching back to someone who had an Idea,
consequently my opinion has more logical validity.
The statement "There is no god" therefore is more valid than the statement "There is a god".
And consequently, the onus is to prove existence, not to prove non-existence.
so in the absence of proof to the opposite I can state "There is no god".

MagicMarker

deise go deo wrote: »

No, My case is to do with someone putting their opinion of something that is absoulitly unprovable forward as fact.

I think to do so is arrogent. What makes their assessment of the situation any more valid than mine?

It has nothing to do with court.:rolleyes:

There are no fairies.

Am I arrogant?

Choochtown

deise go deo wrote: »

I would like to see this evidence against.

I beleive there is a god. I cant prove gods existence so I would never state ''There is a God'' Only ''I beleive in a god''

As far as I know there is no proof that god dosent exist, Nor have I come across any possible method of finding out which statement would be true.

Whit that in mind I concider the position of Atheists to be their opinion, not proven fact and as such I feel that representing ones own opinion as fact is arrogent.

I ask what makes your opinion more valid than mine?

If for example you were to say that you believe that your friend's 98 year old Grandad will win the 2012 Olympic 100 metre final and I argued that I believed Usain Bolt would win, then my opinion is more valid than yours. Mine is based on logical thought, observation and experience yours on an unbelievable suspension of reality.

ColmDawson

deise go deo wrote: »

I would like to see this evidence against.

I beleive there is a god. I cant prove gods existence so I would never state ''There is a God'' Only ''I beleive in a god''

As far as I know there is no proof that god dosent exist, Nor have I come across any possible method of finding out which statement would be true.

Whit that in mind I concider the position of Atheists to be their opinion, not proven fact and as such I feel that representing ones own opinion as fact is arrogent.

I ask what makes your opinion more valid than mine?

I hope, for the sake of logical consistency, that you also believe in centaurs, fauns, vampires, werewolves, fairies, dragons, griffins, mermaids etc.

Cú Giobach

Nemi wrote: »

I think the problem is in that word 'know'.

At any stage all we're doing is suggesting plausible explanations that accord with whatever facts are available. But, as we're never in the position of having accumulated all facts, all statements are conditional.

We can opt for what seems to be the simplest answer. But there no particular reason to say the simplest answer is the best. It could be simply wrong.

I gave the examples in the OP because these are things we do know.
I think you might be hard pressed to find someone who claims we don't know how a tree grows from a seed, and claims it is spontaneously pulled or pushed from the ground by a deity, as was believed many years ago.
The formation of stars and planets is also quite well understood at this stage.
Though of course you are correct our understanding of many things is incomplete but there are also many things we can state with certainty.
(unless we start looking at everything from the quantum level)

Cú Giobach

Cú Giobach wrote: »

The statement "There is no god" therefore is more valid than the statement "There is a god".
And consequently, the onus is to prove existence, not to prove non-existence.
so in the absence of proof to the opposite I can state "There is no god".

Surely you can say "there is no proof/evidence for a god", not "there is no god", that would be silly

Cú Giobach

bluewolf wrote: »

Surely you can say "there is no proof/evidence for a god", not "there is no god", that would be silly

Understood perfectly and I know I cannot state "there is definitely 100% no god"
As was stated earlier it's easier than saying I'm 99.9999...etc% certain.
Since a person can state absolutely anything they like, if it is mindblowingly improbable then I can say "X is incorrect" until proven wrong.
The onus is to prove an illogical statement is true.

Pookah

Interesting question, OP.

There exists a branch of semantics, General Semantics, founded by Alfred Korzybski and expanded upon by David Bourland, which addresses the use of 'isness', or of speaking in absolute terms.

This lead to the invention of E-Prime, the use of English without any form of the verb 'to be'. It tends to bring language more in line with scientific thinking, especially since the discovery of quantum mechanics and the realisation that the notion of absolutes may have no basis in reality (esp. interms of the relationship between the observor and the object).

In short, it prevents the user from dressing up opinion as fact.

Even a statement as seemingly simple as 'the apple is red' can be challenged, since the apple may not only be some other shade of red and have a different colour internally, but it excludes other elements of the apple, it's taste, shape etc. In e-prime one would have to state 'the apple appears red to me' or 'I see the apple as red'

The same notion applies to the existence of God, as you've already put it in your opening post.

If e-prime were utilised more often, it could have the effect of lessening of conflict, since it tends to soften the 'facts' expressed by the user and may lead to less emotion being attached to one's notions.

If anyone disagrees with the above, could they please respond in e-prime.

Cú Giobach

Pookah wrote: »

If anyone disagrees with the above, could they please respond in e-prime.

If that rule applied to Boards..
I think it would make for some very interesting reading .

ColmDawson

E-prime ... eughhhh.

deise go deo

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Nice to see you here.;)

The statement "There is no god" therefore is more valid than the statement "There is a god".

I would say that both statements go beyond their ability to be supported by evedience.

I have no problem if you beleive there is no god, But you dont 'Know' it.

seensensee

Mankind IS god:D They invented the image and today can exercise many of the mythical powers such as instigate a virgin birth, control the weather, eavesdrop on what you say and do from the sky (striking down the wicked with satellite controlled lazer weapons) and the biggie... total annihilation of all life on earth (the apocalypse)
God is an illusion in the face of He God.

deise go deo

Choochtown wrote: »

If for example you were to say that you believe that your friend's 98 year old Grandad will win the 2012 Olympic 100 metre final and I argued that I believed Usain Bolt would win, then my opinion is more valid than yours. Mine is based on logical thought, observation and experience yours on an unbelievable suspension of reality.

Dont be so quick to concider your self superior. My beleifes are based on my assessment of what I know about Reality and Existence. You show me a sientist who will say that God is an Impossibility.

Maybe a bit un equal terms but if you said it was what you beleived rather than something you know is a fact then I would have no problem with that.

I dont beleive in Fairys, Vampires etc.
How about something more tangible though. Aliens.
I cant show you one. I cant prove that they exist. There is no evidence that they do exist. Dose this mean they cant exist?

Cú Giobach

deise go deo wrote: »

I would say that both statements go beyond their ability to be supported by evedience.

I have no problem if you beleive there is no god, But you dont 'Know' it.

OK.;)
That statement last night was a bit much I admit.

Note to self: Do not post on serious topic when drunk.:)

Although I do think a statement based on logic is "more valid" than one based on (forgive me for this) superstition.;)

gbee

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Is the statement "There is no God" a valid one..

Probably. Certainly, as you've outlined, the existence of a God has been pushed back and back.

I think as we progress forward, God's existence or not will recede further.

For the record, I believe that no man can believe in God.

deise go deo

gbee wrote: »

For the record, I believe that no man can believe in God.

Im not sure what you mean by this.

Im a man, I beleive in god, Why do you think I cant?

deise go deo

Cú Giobach wrote: »

OK.;)

Although I do think a statement based on logic is "more valid" than one based on (forgive me for this) superstition.;)

Your verision of Logic.
I dont think my beleif is based on superstition.
My view is something like the Big Bang dident just happen and everything that happened since then makes for a very long list of coincidences to end up with me sitting here typing this. The whole system of the universe works to well for it to have just happened without some force guiding it imo.

Nemi

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I gave the examples in the OP because these are things we do know.
I think you might be hard pressed to find someone who claims we don't know how a tree grows from a seed, and claims it is spontaneously pulled or pushed from the ground by a deity, as was believed many years ago.

But the next turn of the screw is that, for most people, the contention that a tree grows from a seed is something they accept in faith. They are no more able to account for the process than someone accounting for it by divine intervention.

And then, indeed, you can take it to the level of what makes the next moment 'remember' the state of things in the current moment, so it 'knows' what to do with it. I've no particular desire to go there.

In fact, we don't have to. What will a semi detached house in Swords be worth in one year's time? We haven't a clue, because we are actually moved by forces we neither understand nor have control of.

tro81

when you say there is no god then you must believe then things came about by blind chance. There are many idea's how this came about and many sciencetist tryinng to prove them. But when you look at Mathmatical chance that just one thing like RNA forming by blind chance not alone combing with DNA at the same time you start going into the realm what MATHs CALL mathmaticly Impossible. So by simple logic something is 1 in 150000000000 to be by chance then it 149999999999 in 150000000000 that it was design.

Improbable

deise go deo wrote: »

Your verision of Logic.
I dont think my beleif is based on superstition.
My view is something like the Big Bang dident just happen and everything that happened since then makes for a very long list of coincidences to end up with me sitting here typing this. The whole system of the universe works to well for it to have just happened without some force guiding it imo.

This can be called the argument from personal incredulity and is not an argument for the existence of a god at all.

Firstly, just because you don't understand how something works doesn't mean that other people who are knowledgeable in the field don't know how it works. Even in the case where nobody can explain how a particular thing happened, that does not entitle anyone to throw in any old idea for how they think it happened and hold it as an equally valid idea about how it works.

Secondly, this "long list of coincidences" is actually not as long as you might think. There are a few highly improbable events that have to happen and then the processes which are set in motion result in you. For the events that are highly improbable, the anthropic principle quite easily handles that.

Pygmalion

tro81 wrote: »

when you say there is no god then you must believe then things came about by blind chance.

No I mustn't.

Improbable

tro81 wrote: »

when you say there is no god then you must believe then things came about by blind chance. There are many idea's how this came about and many sciencetist tryinng to prove them. But when you look at Mathmatical chance that just one thing like RNA forming by blind chance not alone combing with DNA at the same time you start going into the realm what MATHs CALL mathmaticly Impossible. So by simple logic something is 1 in 150000000000 to be by chance then it 149999999999 in 150000000000 that it was design.

This is the view espoused by people who do not know how common elements of scientific theories work. Even if something is unknown, that does not mean you get to use god to fill the blanks. all gods are gods of the gaps, and as science piles on the knowledge and understanding, the gaps become smaller and smaller.

Cú Giobach

tro81 wrote: »

when you say there is no god then you must believe then things came about by blind chance. There are many idea's how this came about and many sciencetist tryinng to prove them. But when you look at Mathmatical chance that just one thing like RNA forming by blind chance not alone combing with DNA at the same time you start going into the realm what MATHs CALL mathmaticly Impossible. So by simple logic something is 1 in 150000000000 to be by chance then it 149999999999 in 150000000000 that it was design.

Just to use your own statements and (arbitrary?) figures. If there are 150000000000 individual entities and the chances are 150000000000/1 that one will spontaneously spring into life, then the chances that one will spring into life without need of a creator are very big indeed.

eg if the chances of developing a certain cancer are 10,000/1 then out of 10,000 people you would expect 1 case.

DeVore

I dont believe you can say "There is no God". I believe you CAN say "there is no evidence of God."


Do atheists think it would be ok for me to say "there is no Higgs Boson" just because CERN hasnt run the experiments yet?

What we can say is that there is no evidence supporting the claim for there being a God.

Saying "there is no God" as a short cut is both allowing your personal beliefs to sabotage your critical thinking and short circuit the scientific approach.

I dont put the statement much above the old "there are no teapots in orbit around mars" all the same.

DeV.

MagicMarker

tro81 wrote: »

when you say there is no god then you must believe then things came about by blind chance. There are many idea's how this came about and many sciencetist tryinng to prove them. But when you look at Mathmatical chance that just one thing like RNA forming by blind chance not alone combing with DNA at the same time you start going into the realm what MATHs CALL mathmaticly Impossible. So by simple logic something is 1 in 150000000000 to be by chance then it 149999999999 in 150000000000 that it was design.

150,000,000,000 / 1 ain't so improbable when there's about a billion galaxies in the universe with a billion planets in each of them.

antiskeptic

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Is the statement "There is no God" a valid one.

No it's not. Statements mean something and since you have no way of establishing your statement positively, it is meaningless.

I believe it is.

Though it is impossible to prove the non existence of a god, it has never been proven he/she/it does exist (yet).
Humans used to believe a god made plants appear from the ground, we now know differently,
people used to believe a god physically formed the planet Earth, we now know differently, and so on,
There are a great number of things, all slowly eroding the claimed deeds of a deity. ie the evidence is mounting towards non existence.
There is a lot of evidence pointing towards non existence ie the non answering of prayers, scientific explanations for the supposed deeds, no sight nor sound etc,
and none pointing towards existence.

Your belief that it is is based around an idea of what God should be and in finding no evidence for what you think God should be you declare lack of evidence for God. But you don't supply any argument as to why you suppose God as you suppose he should be, should be as you suppose.

Is it valid therefore, to say for a claim, where there is evidence against, but none for , that "There is no X", until proven otherwise.

It's not even valid to say "there is no x until proven otherwise". There have existed all kinds of things for which there was no evidence prior to evidence for them being discovered.

Improbable

DeVore wrote: »

I dont believe you can say "There is no God". I believe you CAN say "there is no evidence of God."


Do atheists think it would be ok for me to say "there is no Higgs Boson" just because CERN hasnt run the experiments yet?

What we can say is that there is no evidence supporting the claim for there being a God.

Saying "there is no God" as a short cut is both allowing your personal beliefs to sabotage your critical thinking and short circuit the scientific approach.

I dont put the statement much above the old "there are no teapots in orbit around mars" all the same.

DeV.

On one hand, you're right. But on the other hand, there was that double blind experiment done which was funded by the templeton foundation about the effects of prayer. The results showed that there was no difference in the health of patients who were prayed for and those who weren't. The religious people who are have heard of it will usually say something along the lines of "god can't be disproved through science" i.e. NOMA. But if the study had showed that prayer did have an effect on the health of patients, I bet they wouldn't be saying the same thing. It's the fact that try to have their cake and eat it too that bothers me. Stuff like that is what makes me tend to say "there is no god" rather than "the likelihood of a god is quite low".

I think its a bit unfair to compare that to the Higgs boson because there is evidence supporting the existence of it from other scientific theories which are valid at this time.

Herbal Deity

deise go deo wrote: »

The whole system of the universe works to well for it to have just happened without some force guiding it imo.

So why God and not aliens or something?

Who created God? By your logic, surely he's too perfect a being to have just existed without some force guiding him, no?

If God can "just exist" why can't the universe "just exist"?

DeVore wrote: »

I dont believe you can say "There is no God". I believe you CAN say "there is no evidence of God."


Do atheists think it would be ok for me to say "there is no Higgs Boson" just because CERN hasnt run the experiments yet?

What we can say is that there is no evidence supporting the claim for there being a God.

Saying "there is no God" as a short cut is both allowing your personal beliefs to sabotage your critical thinking and short circuit the scientific approach.

I dont put the statement much above the old "there are no teapots in orbit around mars" all the same.

Define "God" in purely scientific terms.

Oh wait, you can't. There aren't any scientific hypotheses for "God".

You can say "there is no God" because there is no definition for God. You can't say "there is no Higgs Boson" because there exists a definition and a hypothesis regarding its existence.

Technically, "there is no God" is a little incorrect, but it's more like "the concept of God is not well defined and makes absolutely no sense" than "there is no evidence for God". You can't collect evidence to support the existence of something that's not defined properly. Saying that "there is no evidence for God" seems to suggest that it might be possible to collect evidence to support its existence.

But God is not even at the level of simply requiring evidence to prove his existence. It needs a proper definition, a proper hypothesis, a proper scientific model which it fits into, and it doesn't have any of this. It has hundreds of conflicting, yet equally vague, definitions, the only unifying factor being that usually there is some notion of it creating us and promoting certain morals.

Until there exists some scientific notion of what God is or how it can exist, I don't think saying "there is no God" is entirely inaccurate.

Zillah

deise go deo wrote: »

My view is something like the Big Bang dident just happen and everything that happened since then makes for a very long list of coincidences to end up with me sitting here typing this.

Pick a number between 1 and ten billion.

Let us say it is 7,435,765. Oh my God you had a one in ten billion chance of picking that number, it's like...destiny or magic or something. NO WAY that something with a one in ten billion chance just happens for no reason.

Suffice to say, your logic is deeply flawed. As is your spelling. Seriously, it's insufferable.

The whole system of the universe works to well for it to have just happened without some force guiding it imo.

What exactly do you mean by "works too well"? What would have to happen for it to count as not working so well? For example, sometimes stars get so big they collapse in on themselves and form an infinitely dense point where the very nature of space time is torn asunder. I can't really imagine something more catastrophic. The universe is also flying apart faster than the speed of light and will one day be a dark and almost entirely empty place, with each star so far away from anything else that nothing else exists for all intents and purposes.

What, pray tell, is so well designed about that?

The Mad Hatter

tro81 wrote: »

when you say there is no god then you must believe then things came about by blind chance. There are many idea's how this came about and many sciencetist tryinng to prove them. But when you look at Mathmatical chance that just one thing like RNA forming by blind chance not alone combing with DNA at the same time you start going into the realm what MATHs CALL mathmaticly Impossible. So by simple logic something is 1 in 150000000000 to be by chance then it 149999999999 in 150000000000 that it was design.

Shouldn't the 8 in your username be a 1?

strobe

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Want to throw this question in for discussion.
Is the statement "There is no God" a valid one.
I believe it is.
Though it is impossible to prove the non existence of a god, it has never been proven he/she/it does exist (yet).
Humans used to believe a god made plants appear from the ground, we now know differently,
people used to believe a god physically formed the planet Earth, we now know differently, and so on,
There are a great number of things, all slowly eroding the claimed deeds of a deity. ie the evidence is mounting towards non existence.
There is a lot of evidence pointing towards non existence ie the non answering of prayers, scientific explanations for the supposed deeds, no sight nor sound etc,
and none pointing towards existence.

People can claim anything they want, from the existence of a deity to a "celestial teapot" a la Dawkins.

Is it valid therefore, to say for a claim, where there is evidence against, but none for , that "There is no X", until proven otherwise.

Ahh but you see, you are only thinking about it empirically. There might not be any empirical evidence of god's existence but there is a whole host of personal revelations to confirm his existence. There is also lots of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence.

Cú Giobach

strobe wrote: »

Ahh but you see, you are only thinking about it empirically. There might not be any empirical evidence of god's existence but there is a whole host of personal revelations to confirm his existence. There is also lots of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence.

Hearsay is defined (from dictionary.com) "as an item of idle or unverified information or gossip" and "unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge"
Conjecture is defined as "the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof" and "to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to ensure reliability"
Neither of which can be considered evidence in any sense of the word.

Personal Revelations, are peoples definitions of phycological experiences that have perfectly rational explanations without invoking a god ie; Hallucinations, Hysteria, Schizophrenia..... etc, some people even claim that nothing more than an "Idea" they had is a Revelation.
These cannot be considered evidence either.

As far as sceptics are concerned non empiricall evidence is not evidence.
That is the reality.

strobe

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Hearsay is defined (from dictionary.com) "as an item of idle or unverified information or gossip" and "unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge"
Conjecture is defined as "the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof" and "to conclude or suppose from grounds or evidence insufficient to ensure reliability"
Neither of which can be considered evidence in any sense of the word.

Personal Revelations, are peoples definitions of phycological experiences that have perfectly rational explanations without invoking a god ie; Hallucinations, Hysteria, Schizophrenia..... etc, some people even claim that nothing more than an "Idea" they had is a Revelation.
These cannot be considered evidence either.

As far as sceptics are concerned non empiricall evidence is not evidence.
That is the reality.

Ah, not a follower of The Simpsons or Antiskeptic I see. I was being facetious man.

Cú Giobach

strobe wrote: »

Ah, not a follower of The Simpsons or Antiskeptic I see. I was being facetious man.

OH..woops.
Bit obvious now I see it.
Now I'm laughing at myself Thanks

I think I'll have a bottle of beer now.

MagicMarker

MagicMarker wrote: »

There are no fairies.

Am I arrogant?

Doesn't look like I'm going to get an answer to this.

MrPudding

MagicMarker wrote: »

Doesn't look like I'm going to get an answer to this.

Um, ok. Yes you are...?

MrP

Choochtown

deise go deo wrote: »

Dont be so quick to concider your self superior. My beleifes are based on my assessment of what I know about Reality and Existence. You show me a sientist who will say that God is an Impossibility.

Maybe a bit un equal terms but if you said it was what you beleived rather than something you know is a fact then I would have no problem with that.

I dont beleive in Fairys, Vampires etc.
How about something more tangible though. Aliens.
I cant show you one. I cant prove that they exist. There is no evidence that they do exist. Dose this mean they cant exist?

er... My post (which you quoted) says I believed Usain Bolt would be more likely to win the 100m final than your friend's 98 year old grandad. Read it again. I didn't use the word "know". Yes it is a superior view as it is infinitely more probable.

I'd be very interested to hear your assessment of what you "know about reality and existence". Who's being superior now?