Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Can you be more specific?

Festus wrote: »

It's the perfect tool for your cohort.

Your "perfect tool" has not yet afforded me a shred of evidence that would lead me to suspect there might be a god. That you can not link or cite any either suggests you have not found it either.

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

Festus wrote: »

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

There is your comparison right there. Is this not essentially !exactly! what I have been saying about god belief throughout this entire thread? You have invented something that, clearly, you can not support.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There is your comparison right there. Is this not essentially !exactly! what I have been saying about god belief throughout this entire thread? You have invented something that, clearly, you can not support.

Do you have evidence to support your assertion that you believe I invented God?

Festus wrote: »

Why would you want to?

Could you please answer the question? I'm happy to answer yours if you do.

Deleted User wrote: »

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 wrote: »

Could you please answer the question? I'm happy to answer yours if you do.

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

Festus wrote: »

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

No evidence has ever been put forward to show that X does not exist.

Deleted User wrote: »

No evidence has ever been put forward to show that X does not exist.

Ok, but what does it mean for the existence of X when no evidence has ever been put forward to show that X does not exist?

Festus wrote: »

Ok, but what does it mean for the existence of X when no evidence has ever been put forward to show that X does not exist?

You tell me.
You're the one who brought it up as something that has significance in this debate.

Festus wrote: »

My issue is I see no evidence for the non-existence of God.

Festus wrote: »

Do you have evidence to support your assertion that you believe I invented God?

I am not saying you specifically invented it. I am talking about it as being an invented idea as a whole. And the evidence for this is the complete lack of support of any kind, much less from you, for the idea.

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

Harika

It seems like the last line of defense from the claimers for the existence of god and/or (phd scientists offering evidence for a god) is to declare that the non-existence has not been verified while also pointing out that the confirmation of the non-existence of god and/or (phd scientists offering evidence for a god) cannot be done ever.

Deleted User wrote: »

You tell me.
You're the one who brought it up as something that has significance in this debate.

If you answer the question you will see the significance.

Festus wrote: »

If you answer the question you will see the significance.

Explain to me like I'm 5. I am utterly lost otherwise

My answer to the question would be "It tells us exactly nothing about the existence of X. A lack of evidence for the non-existence of X means we have no information about the existence or non-existence of X. None, therefore we can conclude exactly nothing about the existence of X."

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not saying you specifically invented it. I am talking about it as being an invented idea as a whole.

Can you prove the wheel was invented?

If God was invented surely that can be proven unless there is an invention that cannot be proven to have been invented?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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

I suppose I could Google it for you but that would only prove that either you have difficulties with Google or you are being lazy.

I believe I said it before but I'll paraphrase again. If you want to discover or learn about something, and moreso if you have a university education, you are your own best teacher.
Discovering something for yourself is far more rewarding than having it handed to you on a plate.

RikuoAmero

Festus wrote: »

I suppose I could Google it for you but that would only prove that either you have difficulties with Google or you are being lazy.

Lazy...says the guy who claims X but refuses on multiple occasions to substantiate it.

tommy2bad

Festus wrote: »

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

It means nothing one way or another. You cant prove a negative. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is however a pretty good indication that that variable can be taken out of the equation without any effect on the result.

Festus wrote: »

If God was invented surely that can be proven unless there is an invention that cannot be proven to have been invented?

Repeat: The fact there is absolutely no supporting evidence that there is such entity, much less from you, is strongly suggestive it has simply been invented by our species.

Festus wrote: »

Discovering something for yourself is far more rewarding than having it handed to you on a plate.

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

J C

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Repeat: The fact there is absolutely no supporting evidence that there is such entity, much less from you, is strongly suggestive it has simply been invented by our species.

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

I can give you a list ... but it probably would be moved to the mega-thread.:)

You remind me of a teacher I once knew, whose over-used the phrase 'repeat after me' !!!:eek:

Deleted User wrote: »

Explain to me like I'm 5. I am utterly lost otherwise

I don't want you to be lost but if this is what it tells you...

Deleted User wrote: »

My answer to the question would be "It tells us exactly nothing about the existence of X. A lack of evidence for the non-existence of X means we have no information about the existence or non-existence of X. None, therefore we can conclude exactly nothing about the existence of X."

... I would hope that you are neither a trial judge nor a lawyer, and if you get called to jury service it might be best to get yourself excused.

let me paraphrase what you said to clarify and remove the error...

A lack of evidence for the non-existence of X means we have no information about the non-existence of X.

however the statement ...

therefore we can conclude exactly nothing about the existence of X

does not follow logically what you are doing is making an assumption and jumping to an unsupported conclusion.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!" -- Carl Sagan, Astronomer

If there is a lack of evidence for something all that means is that you haven't found evidence yet and should keep looking until you are satisfied that no evidence exists but that is not what has been presented. Instead what has been presented is a statement about a "lack of evidence for the non-existence" of something.

"Lack of evidence" is implicitly negative because "extant evidence" is postitive.
"Non-existence" is also implicitly negative because "existence" is positive.

I use implicitly because a lack of evidence does not always mean no evidence as it can also mean not much evidence but as you have concluded that lack of evidence implies no evidence it is reasonable to say that it is a negative statement.

So your two negatives are a problem.

Most times when this argument is present what is stated is "a lack of evidence for the existence of X" which is a reasonable statement. When the statement "a lack of evidence for the non-existence of X" is presented it reads initially as being an unreasonable statement and it is.

Lets change this up a bit

Lets say for example that you are taking with someone with a poor knowledge of history. Lets also say they are a moon landing denier. Is it reasonable for them to defend their position with "there is a lack of evidence for the non-existence of Tranquility Base" or is it clearer if they state "there is a lack of evidence for the existence of Tranquility Base"?

The further we travel in time the less evidence there will be for the existence of Tranquility Base so at some stage in the future it will be possible to travel to the moon, go to the tranquility base and find the evidence is now lacking at which point it would be reasonable to say that this lack of evidence may suggest that Tranquility Base never existed.

However if there is a lack of evidence for the non-existence of Tranquility Base even before you go to the moon you could reasonable conclude that if there is no evidence for it's non-existence its existence could be possible.

In stating that there is a lack of evidence for the nonexistence of X rather than there is a lack of evidence for the existence of X the only conclusion I can come to without making assumptions is that if there is a lack of evidence for the nonexistence of X then the nonexistence of X is an unreasonable position to hold due to the lack of evidence and X may exist; also the implication that there is a lack of evidence for nonexistence could imply there is evidence for existence whereas if there is a lack of evidence for the existence of X then it is reasonable to conclude that X may or may not exist until sufficiently reasonable evidence becomes apparent to allow the observer or investigator to come to a definitive conclusion.

tommy2bad wrote: »

It means nothing one way or another. You cant prove a negative. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It is however a pretty good indication that that variable can be taken out of the equation without any effect on the result.

You mean it's a variable of no significance and not worth discussing or in other words an appeal to ignorance.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Repeat: The fact there is absolutely no supporting evidence that there is such entity, much less from you, is strongly suggestive it has simply been invented by our species.

So you are saying that there is and invention that cannot be proven to have been invented.

Is it the wheel? It is circular...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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

Repeat: Do your own research or you will learn nothing.

marienbad

This is becoming more bizarre by the minute.

MrPudding

marienbad wrote: »

This is becoming more bizarre by the minute.

Indeed. We are kind of spoiled on the A&A forum. At least there when someone makes a claim they are typically required to back it up. If one claims that there are a wealth of PHDs, specifically scientists offering proof of god I don't see the issue with providing some details, particularly when those that one is debating with are having difficulties finding this alleged evidence.

I guess if they made it a rule in this forum that a claimant had to actually back up his claims with, you know, evidence, that would be the death of the forum.

MrP

Festus wrote: »

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!" -- Carl Sagan, Astronomer

This is pretty much exactly what I wrote. Just phrased far more succinctly.

Let's not forget that the phrasing "lack of evidence for the non existence" was your own. It was what you deemed significant enough to mention here.

I've been trying to figure out how on earth it can be seen as having significance. I'm still lost. You haven't been able to explain the difference between the "LOEFTNE" of the Púca or the Leprechaun and the "LOEFTNE" of a god other than remark about the beliefs held by people. However when I gave you an example of the beliefs changing through time, you ignored it. The special pleading case is obvious.

Safehands

Festus wrote: »

So you are saying that there is and invention that cannot be proven to have been invented.
Is it the wheel? It is circular...

There is absolutely no doubt that the wheel was invented, obviously. Likewise, the idea of God was also invented, we hear about it all the time. It's a great idea, going back thousands of years, just like Santa Clause, which is also a great idea. Actually there is more evidence for the existence of Santa than there is for God.

ABC101

Safehands wrote: »

There is absolutely no doubt that the wheel was invented, obviously. Likewise, the idea of God was also invented, we hear about it all the time. It's a great idea, going back thousands of years, just like Santa Clause, which is also a great idea. Actually there is more evidence for the existence of Santa than there is for God.

If I could offer a small clarification.

Believers just don't believe blindly. When one starts to believe... and commences on a journey of believing in God.... a relationship develops.

A person who prays to God / Jesus Christ / Virgin Mary / Saints etc enters into a type of relationship / conversation etc.

For example certain problems which the person may be experiencing i.e. health, job issues, family issues, personal issues or whatever.

Many of these issues cannot be solved by the person on their own. However a great many believers.... after having prayed to God about issues which affect them... have had their problems solved / reduced / overcome etc.

This is something which is very important. Because it demonstrates to the believer... that they have been listened to, they have been heard by God, and the problem which they were faced with has either been solved, diminished, or the person was able to draw on internal strength to overcome the difficulty.

This is why believers have belief.... because that they have experienced this relationship first hand in their own lives, not just once but many times... sometimes several times a year, several times a month or several times a day.

I have never heard of a person who was seriously ill / terminally ill who prayed to Santa and was cured.

Harika

ABC101 wrote: »

If I could offer a small clarification.

<-snip->

For example certain problems which the person may be experiencing i.e. health, job issues, family issues, personal issues or whatever.

Many of these issues cannot be solved by the person on their own. However a great many believers.... after having prayed to God about issues which affect them... have had their problems solved / reduced / overcome etc.

<-snip->

I have never heard of a person who was seriously ill / terminally ill who prayed to Santa and was cured.

This claim has been tested, if a person that people pray for will have a higher chance to survive or get better than if no one is praying for them: (again please enter the hyperlink before) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_on_intercessory_prayer
No positive effect could be verified for the people prayed for compared to the people that were not prayed for.
It has also been tested what happens to very sick people that get the last rites, compared to no last rites. Here the people who did not get the last rites had a higher chance to survive. Why is that so? Scientists believe this is caused by the last rites itself because the patent who receives the last rites realizes how bad his situation is and might surrender. The religious reply was that this is nothing god would need to show.

And for the last part, I heard of seriously ill / terminally ill atheists and agnostics that recovered, while I also heard of healthy people that went to Lourdes to pray that died there of heart attacks or strokes, while non-believers and even Satanists went there and came back healthy and alive.
I understand that by religion people are made to believe to link all good to god, while the bad things are caused by satan or the guilty humans itself. Or the above is justified by “God’s ways are mysterious” or from my youth “Shut up and pray”

ABC101

Harika wrote: »

This claim has been tested, if a person that people pray for will have a higher chance to survive or get better than if no one is praying for them: (again please enter the hyperlink before) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_on_intercessory_prayer
No positive effect could be verified for the people prayed for compared to the people that were not prayed for.
It has also been tested what happens to very sick people that get the last rites, compared to no last rites. Here the people who did not get the last rites had a higher chance to survive. Why is that so? Scientists believe this is caused by the last rites itself because the patent who receives the last rites realizes how bad his situation is and might surrender. The religious reply was that this is nothing god would need to show.

And for the last part, I heard of seriously ill / terminally ill atheists and agnostics that recovered, while I also heard of healthy people that went to Lourdes to pray that died there of heart attacks or strokes, while non-believers and even Satanists went there and came back healthy and alive.
I understand that by religion people are made to believe to link all good to god, while the bad things are caused by satan or the guilty humans itself. Or the above is justified by “God’s ways are mysterious” or from my youth “Shut up and pray”

While in my post I did use illness as an example.... there are other examples as to why believers believe.

One gentleman I know of was running a business... severe cash flow problems.... suriving literally hour to hour. He believed.... he prayed... and he managed to financially keep the company going on a daily basis. This was evidence for him that God was answering his prayers.

One event occured where a complete stranger.... walked into the managers office and made a personal monetary donation there and then which kept the company going for another week.

This only furthered / strengthened / increased the managers belief in God and offered further affirmation that the relationship between the two was real enough.

J C wrote: »

I can give you a list ... but it probably would be moved to the mega-thread.

So nothing from you either then.

Festus wrote: »

So you are saying that there is and invention that cannot be proven to have been invented.

I mean what I say. Not what you pretend I said.

Festus wrote: »

Repeat: Do your own research or you will learn nothing.

So you claim there is a list of phds offering evidence but are unable to cite any of them. Very telling.