nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

PDN

This new 'catch-all' thread will operate similar to the Creationism and Protestant/Catholic Debate threads.

Too many threads are spoilt and dragged off topic when a non-Christian poster demands, "What evidence do you have for God?" While some may enjoy such discussion, it is frequently off-topic and derails discussion of other subjects (the very discussion that is the reason for this Forum's existence).

So, in order to protect the Forum and facilitate on topic discussions, all that stuff now belongs here. Anyone who keeps trying to derail other discussions by demanding evidence for God's existence will be warned, and if those warnings are ignored then swift infractions and bans will ensue.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Festus

Harika wrote: »

That's exactly why I ask for a source for your claim as it looks made up. (What I assume and you know)

which claim?

Harika

Festus wrote: »

Today there is an untold wealth of PhD scientists who believe in God able and willing to share their evidence.

This one

Festus

Harika wrote: »

This one

Feel free to verify it using whatever method works best for you.

It might help if you use the term apologetics in your search. It will help narrow down the responses.

Some of them have youtube entries as well if you have the time.

However, there is a typo in my claim - it should read "there is an untold wealth from PhD scientists..."

Harika

Festus wrote: »

Feel free to verify it using whatever method works best for you.

It might help if you use the term apologetics in your search. It will help narrow down the responses.

When I think back how fast the science20 article was shown, I highly assume that if such a list existed someone would be strutting around already like a rooster and showing it.

Festus

Harika wrote: »

When I think back how fast the science20 article was shown, I highly assume that if such a list existed someone would be strutting around already like a rooster and showing it.

Why? This is science and who is really interested?

Safehands

Festus wrote: »

Why? This is science and who is really interested?

I think you are prone to misquoting people, and probably facts, when it suits you.

Festus

Safehands wrote: »

I think you are prone to misquoting people, and probably facts, when it suits you.

maybe I've been hanging around with atheists for too long.

nozzferrahhtoo

Festus wrote: »

Can you not simple tell me which words you would put into a search engine?

As I said too many to mention. Not clear why it is important.

You said there are phd scientists offering evidence for a god. Can you follow this up and tell us who and where?

Safehands

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As I said too many to mention. Not clear why it is important.

You said there are phd scientists offering evidence for a god. Can you follow this up and tell us who and where?

No he can't Nozz. I think you know that.

Benny_Cake

Safehands wrote: »

I think you are prone to misquoting people, and probably facts, when it suits you.

Festus wrote: »

maybe I've been hanging around with atheists for too long.

Mod: Debate the issues without making it personal, please. Also, generalised digs at either atheists or theists are not in keeping with the charter.

Festus

Safehands wrote: »

No he can't Nozz. I think you know that.

Not can't - won't - for reasons already stated. Plus you're all big enough and intelligent enough to use an internet search engine or a library for yourselves.

It's up to you whether you use the tool and limited terms already provided by Harika or not. You can even take out the words between the plus signs and add your own or extra terms if you so desire. It's the perfect tool for your cohort.

If you can't or won't do your own thinking and research that is for you to address.

[Deleted User]

Festus, can I draw your attention to this post when you have the time to answer it please?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93200715&postcount=8640

I'm not following your train of thought.

Festus

Deleted User wrote: »

Festus, can I draw your attention to this post when you have the time to answer it please?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=93200715&postcount=8640

I'm not following your train of thought.

I answered that already. Perhaps I can put it another way.
Arguments for the non-existence of something that exists only in the mind of an atheist is not the same as arguing for the non existence of something that does not exist in the mind of an atheist.

The mistake, if you want to call it that, is not in what you think but how you think.
Once the issue of how you think is understood with the next move is why you think.

For some scientists "why" is not that popular a question. It has the potential to lead them to places they don't want to go.

[Deleted User]

Can you explain how a belief about the existence of something held by a person has any relevance to the "lack of evidence for the non-existence" of that thing?

As an example, Irish folklore details a belief in the Púca.
We have a "lack of evidence for the non-existence" of the Púca. However we do have believers in the existence of the Púca.

However, it reads to me that you're suggesting that the existence of believers in the Púca somehow alters the "lack of evidence for the non-existence" of the Púca.

If I'm wrong, can you explain how I've misinterpreted you?

Festus

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you explain how a belief about the existence of something held by a person has any relevance to the "lack of evidence for the non-existence" of that thing?

As an example, Irish folklore details a belief in the Púca.
We have a "lack of evidence for the non-existence" of the Púca. However we do have believers in the existence of the Púca.

However, it reads to me that you're suggesting that the existence of believers in the Púca somehow alters the "lack of evidence for the non-existence" of the Púca.

If I'm wrong, can you explain how I've misinterpreted you?

I have never met someone who believes in the Puca so apart from having no knowledge of their evidence I also have no knowledge or experience of their arguments.

If I met a believer in The Puca then we could go to the next step. If the Puca is not offering something worthwhile to warrant further investigation why would I pursue the investigation any further?

If for example the Puca was offering something worthwhile, say for example, eternal life, it would warrant further investigation. However the competition in this field is stiff so the investigation should be robust.

The issue of the relevance to 'the "lack of evidence for the non-existence" of that thing' is that it is not relevant by the fact of its ambiguity. 1984 was only a novel after all.

That said, If I don't look for the evidence then the evidence I have is lacking. If I do look for the evidence then I cannot say that there is a lack of evidence unless I know what the sum total of that evidence is so I can determine that some of it is lacking. However if there is genuine belief that the evidence for the non existence of something is actually lacking despite all best efforts then the existence of something should be considered.

Oh, and I found this, Not sure if it is of any use but it looks to be well designed. http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/

[Deleted User]

I'm afraid I'm getting terribly, terribly confused here. Though I can't be sure if it's my fault or yours. (Apologies if it is my own)

Are we now at the stage of claiming that a change in number of believers in the Púca has altered the state of the "lack of evidence of the non-existence"?
In effect a flip-flop?

(t1) - Originally, before the Púca was thought of, there were no believers.
(t2) - Eventually - though still fadó fadó - there were believers.
(t3) - Your present day empirical statement suggests that now there are not sufficient numbers of believers to worry about. (I concur)

(Can we agree on these three states/scenarios/timelines?)

I'm interpreting your posts as saying that you suggest that this means that the "lack of evidence of non-existence" of the Púca has changed through these scenarios?
However I can't see how the number of believers is relevant? I'm asking you to perhaps explain that.

If you offer the suggestion that a "worthwhile offering" alters the question further, substitute the Leprechaun in place of the Púca in all of our discussion so far and it should fulfill that need.(I'm hesitant bring any other religion into the conversation, but you could equally use a Hindu god as another example if you particularly needed to). I'd really prefer to stay in the realm of folklore so as not to insult anyone though.

Lady Chuckles

I believe in Leprechauns

I haven't seen one. No one I know has seen one. One could argue they don't exist because no one has seen them, but at the same time no one knows for sure the don't exist either. Maybe they just hide really well. I choose to believe Leprechauns exist because it makes me happy thinking there are ginge little men hiding gold and creating rainbows (lack of knowledge about the Leprechaun/rainbow relationship make me say creating).

People may say raindrops and sunshine create rainbows and I'd accept that, but I'd also think "what if Leprechauns use their magic to get raindrops and sunshine together?"
I need Leprechauns in my life to make it more worthwhile. If everything is answered by pure science and disbelief in anything different, it would be a terribly boring world for me. Knowledge and science change all the time, they have yet to prove to me Leprechauns aren't real. In fairness, no one cares enough to research Leprechauns but maybe one day someone somewhere will find a Leprechaun's little shoe and sufficient evidence of their existence. Maybe it will be the other way around and I'm told Leprechauns really don't exist, in which case I'd be very upset because they were my joy and my meaning

:)

.... I like Leprechauns a lot

Festus

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm afraid I'm getting terribly, terribly confused here. Though I can't be sure if it's my fault or yours. (Apologies if it is my own)

Are we now at the stage of claiming that a change in number of believers in the Púca has altered the state of the "lack of evidence of the non-existence"?
In effect a flip-flop?

No flip-flop that I am aware of.

You may be interpreting my statement that I know of no believers in the Puca as a statement that can be quantified. How you are doing that I do not know. Nor did I make any claim or suggestion that any change in the numbers of believers is of any consequence. I have no reason to any interest in the Puca but if you believe it helps your case perhaps you can tell me how many people believe in the Puca but only if you believe it helps your case.

Deleted User wrote: »

(t1) - Originally, before the Púca was thought of, there were no believers.
(t2) - Eventually - though still fadó fadó - there were believers.
(t3) - Your present day empirical statement suggests that now there are not sufficient numbers of believers to worry about.

(Can we agree on these three states/scenarios/timelines?)

No we cannot. Your T1 and T2 may be correct but your T3 is incorrect as the sufficiency or insufficiency of the numbers is irrelevant and my statement as regards experience of such believers suggests nothing about their numbers.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm interpreting your posts as saying that you suggest that this means that the "lack of evidence of non-existence" of the Púca has changed through these scenarios?
However I can't see how the number of believers is relevant? I'm asking you to perhaps explain that.

I cannot see how the number of believers in your example is relevant either.

I do not recall stating anywhere that the number of believers is significant. However there can be a significance to a certain extent where there are a significant number of believers but it is only significant in terms of its potential as a determining factor to discern the requirement for further investigation. There are other significant factors not least of which is the significance of the entity in which they are expressing belief and what the nature of this significance is.
For example, if we can leave the realm of folklore for a moment, are you significant and if not why not?

Deleted User wrote: »

If you offer the suggestion that a "worthwhile offering" alters the state further, substitute the Leprechaun in place of the Púca in all of our discussion so far and it should fulfill that need.(I'm hesitant bring any other religion into the conversation, but you could equally use a Hindu god as another example if you particularly needed to). I'd really prefer to stay in the realm of folklore so as not to insult anyone though.

It does not unless the leprechaun is offering something worthwhile.

You can stay with folklore if fairy tales is what you understand best but I'm no expert on fairies.

Lady Chuckles

Festus wrote: »

/It does not/ unless the leprechaun is offering something worthwhile.

What's worthwhile is individual though, right?

Festus

Lady Chuckles wrote: »

What's worthwhile is individual though, right?

Of course.

For some it's money, wealth, power. For others its sex and\or drugs and rock and roll. Some think intelligence, high IQ and the wit to destroy all opposing arguments is worthwhile.

Ultimately all of these are transitory and can be lost in an instant and if not lost in this life will be lost upon death.

Your leprechauns sound like fun. I must investigate them when I have a little time to spare.

Your levity is welcome, respected and appreciated

[Deleted User]

They're but examples, folklore is (in my opinion) possibly a less 'testy' framework to test and resolve these issues in.

Can we try to stick to my Púca example and try to find out where my understanding of the debate has broken down?

Let's suggest that t1 and t2 are correct (perhaps 'agreeable' is a better term than correct?). Can we define t3 as the 'current state of play'? If you could describe your take on the present day beliefs in the Púca instead of my own version above, we can then have 3 clear 'states'.

Festus wrote: »

I do not recall stating anywhere that the number of believers is significant.

Correct, you didn't explicitly state this, but you did say that it affects how we should view the lack of evidence. This is what I'm concerned about.

Festus wrote: »

not similar. lack of evidence for something no-one believes in is not the same as lack of evidence for something people believe in.

I'm not too concerned about my own significance to be honest. My significance in the debate of the existence of god is irrelevant.

The flip flop reference was with regards to the my examples of my guesses of numbers of believers in the Púca, from no believers to many to none again. And, if we read your last quote just above, surely that means that the 'lack of evidence' has changed as the beliefs have changed through time?

(if quoting this post please feel free to delete from here on - I'm just posting the edited posts to try keep a track of where we are and how we've got to this point)

(re:Tooth Fairy)

Deleted User wrote: »

However, are we able to agree that there's a similar lack of evidence for their non-existence as a lack of evidence for the non-existence of god? If not, what evidence is available in the second case?

Festus wrote: »

not similar. lack of evidence for something no-one believes in is not the same as lack of evidence for something people believe in.

Deleted User wrote: »

Why not? I think that this idea needs expansion further if you don't mind.

Festus wrote: »

I answered that already. Perhaps I can put it another way....
Arguments for the non-existence of something that exists only in the mind of an atheist is not the same as arguing for the non existence of something that does not exist in the mind of an atheist....

Deleted User wrote: »

Can you explain how a belief about the existence of something held by a person has any relevance to the "lack of evidence for the non-existence" of that thing?
...
However, it reads to me that you're suggesting that the existence of believers .. somehow alters the "lack of evidence for the non-existence" ...
If I'm wrong, can you explain how I've misinterpreted you?

Festus

Deleted User wrote: »

They're but examples, folklore is (in my opinion) possibly a less 'testy' framework to test and resolve these issues in.

Can we try to stick to my Púca example and try to find out where my understanding of the debate has broken down?

Won't work as I fail to see how there is any comparison and all you are doing is inventing something you can support.

Deleted User wrote: »

Let's suggest that t1 and t2 are correct (perhaps 'agreeable' is a better term than correct?). Can we define t3 as the 'current state of play'? If you could describe your take on the present day beliefs in the Púca instead of my own version above, we can then have 3 clear 'states'.

No because I do not agree with T3. It is something you introduced.

Deleted User wrote: »

Correct, you didn't explicitly state this, but you did say that it affects how we should view the lack of evidence. This is what I'm concerned about.

State your case for the Puca. Illustrate the significance.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not too concerned about my own significance to be honest. My significance in the debate of the existence of god is irrelevant.
The flip flop reference was with regards to the my examples of my guesses of numbers of believers in the Púca, from no believers to many to none again).

Outside of this thread and forum I believe you are significant. Feel free to disagree.

Deleted User wrote: »

(if quoting this post please feel free to delete from here on - I'm just posting the edited posts to try keep a track of where we are and how we've got to this point)
(re:Tooth Fairy)

Apologies, I did want to retain them but the SW had different ideas.

Suffice to say that it shows that the existence of believers and the issue of their numbers is something you introduced.

[Deleted User]

Ignore t3 so, as it may be confusing matters that we don't need to confuse.

t1 and t2 (which we've agreed on) are different with regards to people's beliefs in the Púca.
However, there was no change in the lack of evidence for the non-existence of the Púca. No evidence (that I'm aware of) appears to have ever been presented in either case.

Can we agree on this?

Next step (if we've agreed on the above).
This quote

Festus wrote: »

not similar. lack of evidence for something no-one believes in is not the same as lack of evidence for something people believe in.

suggests to me that given that

in t1 there was no-one believing in the Púca,
in t2 there were people believing in the Púca

that we should treat the lack of evidence differently between the two cases/states.
I'm not sure why we should, I'm trying to understand why you've suggested it?

Festus

Deleted User wrote: »

Next step (if we've agreed on the above).
This quote

suggests to me that given that
in t1 there was no-one believing in the Púca,
in t2 there were people believing in the Púca
that we should treat the lack of evidence differently between the two cases/states.
I'm not sure why we should, I'm trying to understand why you've suggested it?

Who believes in T2 now?

[Deleted User]

Festus wrote: »

Who believes in T2 now?

I'm sorry, what?

We have a situation where beliefs have changed, yet the "lack of evidence for the non existence" of something has not changed (as no evidence has ever been provided).

Is that not fair to say?

Festus

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm sorry, what?

You said "in t2 there were people believing in the Púca"

and I said

"Who believes in t2 now."

The question to me is obvious however your response was a little unexpected.

Lets try a topical example.

Most people believe there is a lack of sufficient evidence for the existence of Santa. Others believe that the lack of evidence for the non existence of Santa is not a reason to believe in the existence of Santa. Still others believe that the lack of evidence for the non existence of Santa is not a reason to not believe in the non existence of Santa. However he might actually exist and for some people he does.
However if Santa does not exist and never did what does that do the the Christmas experience.

Festus

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm sorry, what?

We have a situation where beliefs have changed, yet the "lack of evidence for the non existence" of something has not changed (as no evidence has ever been provided).

Is that not fair to say?

What beliefs have changed and how have they changed. If we're still talking about the Puca I really have no frame of reference.

Did you try that link?

[Deleted User]

Festus wrote: »

not similar. lack of evidence for something no-one believes in is not the same as lack of evidence for something people believe in.

This is what I'm trying to understand. Thus far, I'm yet to read any reasonable argument about why the above statement is true.

I've given an example of a folkloric creature which people did not believe in, and then subsequently did believe in. I'm asking you to please explain how their beliefs change/alter/affect the "lack of evidence of the non-existence", which is what the quote above leads me to understand. Again, if I'm misunderstanding you, I'd appreciate if you could explain where my reasoning broke down.

If my example of the Púca is confusing things, I can totally generalize the question for you instead.

Initial Conditions:
Group A believe X is real. Group B believe X is not real.
There is no evidence of the non-existence of X.

Scenario 1:
Group A subsumes Group B in its entirety.
There is no evidence of the non-existence of X.

Scenario 2:
Group B subsumes Group A in it's entirety.
There is no evidence of the non-existence of X.

Question:
Should we treat the 'lack of evidence of the non-existence' of X differently in these scenarios?

[Deleted User]

Festus wrote: »

Did you try that link?

Yes, I did. I found it to be lacking in logic. Ironically this page

Festus

Deleted User wrote: »

This is what I'm trying to understand. Thus far, I'm yet to read any reasonable argument about why the above statement is true.

If people believe in something they have reason to. If people do not believe in something they have reason to. The reasons people have for believing in something may not be the same reasons they have for not believing in something. However If there is something no one believes in it is probably because there is no evidence. If there is something people believe in it suggests there probably is evidence. Lack of no evidence is not the same as lack of evidence.

Deleted User wrote: »

I've given an example of a folkloric creature which people did not believe in, and then subsequently did believe in. I'm asking you to please explain how their beliefs change/alter/affect the "lack of evidence of the non-existence", which is what the quote above leads me to understand. Again, if I'm misunderstanding you, I'd appreciate if you could explain where my reasoning broke down.

If my example of the Púca is confusing things, I can totally generalize the question for you instead.

Initial Conditions:
Group A believe X is real. Group B believe X is not real.
There is no evidence of the non-existence of X.

Scenario 1:
Group A subsumes Group B in its entirety.
There is no evidence of the non-existence of X.

Scenario 2:
Group B subsumes Group A in it's entirety.
There is no evidence of the non-existence of X.

Question:
Should we treat the 'lack of evidence of the non-existence' of X differently in these scenarios?

Why would you want to?

The first thing you need to do is state what it means for the existence of X when there is a lack of evidence for X's non-existence.