Searching for GOD...

[SusanDoris]

That's the problem when you have no evidence to support your position. Not everyone wants to put their faith in a set of arguments against something.

And up pops the negative proof fallacy again!

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

And up pops the negative proof fallacy again!

Right. Remind me again why I can't prove that 2+2<>5, or that David Cameron is not the President of the USA, or that the River Thames does not run through Glasgow...

Please cite post number - I'll never find it otherwise.

It was your #13743

[Walt Zingmatilder]

'I don't believe in God or gods' probably wasn't worth writing down.

Yes but I think SD thinks that being atheists they would have been founts of knowledge and that all of there work which would have led to bases on Mars, transplants and the elimination of death and disease would have all happened by the Middle Ages................or is she merely inventing Atlanteans.

[floo]

That's the problem when you have no evidence to support your position. Not everyone wants to put their faith in a set of arguments against something.

There is no evidence to support the existence of any gods.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

If only the atheists throughout history had written down and preserved their thoughts and conclusions, we just might have arrived at this point in time with a much more sound  logical and clearer philosophy.

Do you mean like this?

I'm not sure about that.  Simulation Theory and God Theory (aka theism) lead to infinite regress although theists would deny that but then their definition of god is in essence a superficial tautology to avoid the charge of apparent regress. If you go down the road of our complexity being the 'intentional' creation of even more highly complex beings then clearly you end up in a vicious spiral of increasing upward complexity leading to a meaningless paradox.  You don't necessarily get that problem if you accept that complexity emerges from simpler origins, although this way of thinking is more challenging for us - learning to live without the simple 'big-guy-upstairs-must-have-done-it-all' easy answer. Harder answers, avoiding such regress problems, require us to think how all this complexity could have come from nothing initially, and maybe we could take clues, pointers, from the probabilistic nature of fundamental reality that we have glimpsed from quantum mechanics; maybe there are laws of nature simply because it would be illogical for there to be no such laws; and there is stuff rather than no stuff simply because the probability of there being zero stuff would also be zero.

Which illustrates why I haven't enough faith to be an atheist. I have to consider that something can come from nothing even thought the probability of the nothing that the something comes from is zero?

[SusanDoris]

The first problem with this is illustrated by the poster who said this. What's to stop people in the future thinking this way?

I did not say that, you are inventing words that were not in my post. I'm sure you will feel it incumbent upon you to apologise?

[Maeght]

That's the problem when you have no evidence to support your position. Not everyone wants to put their faith in a set of arguments against something.

No, that's not the problem.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

I did not say that, you are inventing words that were not in my post. I'm sure you will feel it incumbent upon you to apologise?

Here's your #13743 in full, to which my response was in #13747

I find it hard to understand how people believed this stuff when it was first written down, let alone today. I was going to say next - and even harder to understand today, but that is not so; it is clear from history and written records how and why people believe it, but seriously worring that greater numbers of people do not break out from behind the barrier of religious faith and out of the dogma and trap of faith in things which do not exist.

If only the atheists throughout history had written down and preserved their thoughts and conclusions, we just might have arrived at this point in time with a much more sound  logical and clearerphilosophy. Mind you, they probably did write things down but the religious commanders and leaders would have destroyed them since it would have disrupted their (i.e. the leaders') influence.

All I did was take the first part of the second paragraph and point out why it may be a problem by using part of what you wrote in the first paragraph, i.e.

If only the atheists throughout history had written down and preserved their thoughts and conclusions, we just might have arrived at this point in time with a much more sound  logical and clearerphilosophy.

For which this may be a problem:

I find it hard to understand how people believed this stuff when it was first written down, let alone today. I was going to say next - and even harder to understand today, but that is not so; it is clear from history and written records how and why people believe it.

I removed the references to religious belief because what you said could equally be applied to anything atheists had written down and preserved, etc. So you have answered your own question.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

That's the problem when you have no evidence to support your position. Not everyone wants to put their faith in a set of arguments against something.

There is no evidence to support the existence of any gods.

Thank you for illustrating my point for me Floo. 

[SusanDoris]

The first problem with this is illustrated by the poster who said this. What's to stop people in the future thinking this way

Not only have you misquoted me, you have also mistaken my meaning. The word 'next' was an adverb following the verb 'going to say', i.e. I decided to change The words I originally thought of writing and wrote the first sentence as it appears; I made no mention of the future.

[Maeght]

Thank you for illustrating my point for me Floo. 

That's not illustrating your point though is it? Your point seems to be that there is no evidence that God doesn't exist , yes?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

That's not illustrating your point though is it?

Isn't it?

That's the problem when you have no evidence to support your position. Not everyone wants to put their faith in a set of arguments against something.

There is no evidence to support the existence of any gods.

[Maeght]

I don't think so but perhaps you could explain why you think it is. That's why I asked the question.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

I don't think so but perhaps you could explain why you think it is. That's why I asked the question.

The statement There is no evidence to support the existence of any gods. is an argument against belief in gods.

Such a statement presupposes that the person making it knows what evidence would convince them otherwise, otherwise how do they know that  there is no evidence? To press the individual on this seems to invite claims of shifting the burden of proof this, fallacy that, etc., and this is why I see it as someone putting their faith in argument(s) against something.

[floo]

Do you mean like this?Which illustrates why I haven't enough faith to be an atheist. I have to consider that something can come from nothing even thought the probability of the nothing that the something comes from is zero?

But even if there was an intelligent designer, there is nothing to suggest it was anything to do with the gods worshipped by humans as they are less than credible.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

I’ve stepped away from the mb in part because you and others persist with hopeless reasoning of this kind despite having it undone many times. As you seem to have forgotten (again) the rebuttals though, briefly:

The statement There is no evidence to support the existence of any gods is an argument against belief in gods.

No it isn’t. It’s an “argument” (actually just a finding) that, so far at least, those who claim evidence for their god(s) are wrong to do so. There may or may not be good other reasons to believe in gods, but fallacious reasoning doesn’t do the job.

Such a statement presupposes that the person making it knows what evidence would convince them otherwise,…

No it doesn’t. It just presupposes that, if discourse is to be possible, then common understandings of the terms used are essential. “Evidence” has a meaning that, if you corrupt it also to mean, “well it’s evidence enough for me” nullifies it because anyone could claim thereby that anything is evidence enough for their belief in anything at all. 

…otherwise how do they know that  there is no evidence?

Because, according to the standard definitions of the term, the facts and reasoning marshalled so far at least to argue “God” are not evidence at all. Strong opinion or personal faith they may be, but evidence they are not.

To press the individual on this seems to invite claims of shifting the burden of proof this, fallacy that, etc., and this is why I see it as someone putting their faith in argument(s) against something.

It seems that way to you because you don’t understand how the burden of proof works. I may well claim that wearing my lucky pants caused my favourite tea to be waiting for me when I got home (see, evidence!), but there’s no obligation on you to prove otherwise. All you have to do is to point out that lucky pants wearing fails any meaningful test of the term “evidence”. QED.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Sword,

I’ve stepped away from the mb in part because you and others persist with hopeless reasoning of this kind despite having it undone many times. As you seem to have forgotten (again) the rebuttals though, briefly:î

No it isn’t. It’s an “argument” (actually just a finding) that, so far at least, those who claim evidence for their god(s) are wrong to do so. There may or may not be good other reasons to believe in gods, but fallacious reasoning doesn’t do the job.

No it doesn’t. It just presupposes that, if discourse is to be possible, then common understandings of the terms used are essential. “Evidence” has a meaning that, if you corrupt it also to mean, “well it’s evidence enough for me” nullifies it because anyone could claim thereby that anything is evidence enough for their belief in anything at all. 

Because, according to the standard definitions of the term, the facts and reasoning marshalled so far at least to argue “God” are not evidence at all. Strong opinion or personal faith they may be, but evidence they are not.

It seems that way to you because you don’t understand how the burden of proof works. I may well claim that wearing my lucky pants caused my favourite tea to be waiting for me when I got home (see, evidence!), but there’s no obligation on you to prove otherwise. All you have to do is to point out that lucky pants wearing fails any meaningful test of the term “evidence”. QED.

Great......You will have no problem giving the definition of evidence then.

Yours......not holding his breath.....

Vlad.

[Maeght]

The statement There is no evidence to support the existence of any gods. is an argument against belief in gods.

With this sort of thing there is certainly the question of defining God or gods. I would also accept your point about what evidence would there be which would convince people otherwise.

Such a statement presupposes that the person making it knows what evidence would convince them otherwise, otherwise how do they know that  there is no evidence?

I don't really think it does - I just think it is a statement of the current situation - really the person is saying 'There is nothing that makes me think God exists'. That isn't saying that God doesn't exist and could not exist, it is a description of the persons current state of beielf.

to press the individual on this seems to invite claims of shifting the burden of proof this, fallacy that, etc., and this is why I see it as someone putting their faith in argument(s) against something

Because I think you seem to be suggesting that people are saying there definitely is no God but really most people are saying they have no belief in God, that they see nothing to make them think God exists, but that they could be wrong.

[Gordon]

The statement There is no evidence to support the existence of any gods. is an argument against belief in gods.

No it isn't - it is no more than an observation that there is none, in that claims of evidence for gods fail for various reasons (such as being unsupported by methodology).

Such a statement presupposes that the person making it knows what evidence would convince them otherwise, otherwise how do they know that  there is no evidence?

No it doesn't - there may well be evidence for god but to date the claims of evidence made by proponents of god fail. Feel free to propose evidence, but don't forget the related stuff such as method.

To press the individual on this seems to invite claims of shifting the burden of proof this, fallacy that, etc., and this is why I see it as someone putting their faith in argument(s) against something.

Then you see it wrongly - pointing out that arguments are fallacious and can be readily dismissed requires no 'faith': just familiarity with the reasoning errors that comprise fallacies.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it isn't - it is no more than an observation that there is none, in that claims of evidence for gods fail for various reasons (such as being unsupported by methodology).

No it doesn't - there may well be evidence for god but to date the claims of evidence made by proponents of god fail. Feel free to propose evidence, but don't forget the related stuff such as method.

Then you see it wrongly - pointing out that arguments are fallacious and can be readily dismissed requires no 'faith': just familiarity with the reasoning errors that comprise fallacies.

Definition of evidence?

[Maeght]

Definition of evidence?

From the Oxford English Dictionary:
'The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.'

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Great......You will have no problem giving the definition of evidence then.

Yours......not holding his breath.....

Try any dictionary - some are online I believe.

If you don't like the standard definitions though, try instead a simple thought experiment: take any of the usual clams of "evidence" used by theists (strong opinion, personal faith, incredulity, NPF etc) and instead of "God" as the outcome just drop in any other conjecture that takes your fancy. If you can't find a reason for the same "evidence" not to work equally for those other conjectures (and you can't), that should tell you something about whether the term "evidence" is appropriate at all.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Try any dictionary - some are online I believe.

If you don't like the standard definitions though, try instead a simple thought experiment: take any of the usual clams of "evidence" used by theists (strong opinion, personal faith, incredulity, NPF etc) and instead of "God" as the outcome just drop in any other conjecture that takes your fancy. If you can't find a reason for the same "evidence" not to work equally for those other conjectures (and you can't), that should tell you something about whether the term "evidence" is appropriate at all.

Since you've given an online lecture around evidence decency gives us the entitlement to expect you to complete by giving us your understanding of evidence...........

."...............it's ok though since its you I'm not holding my breath.

[Maeght]

You asked for a definition - now asking for understanding of - not really sure what you are expecting people to say.

[torridon]

Do you mean like this?Which illustrates why I haven't enough faith to be an atheist. I have to consider that something can come from nothing even thought the probability of the nothing that the something comes from is zero?

 

I don't follow what faith has to do with it.  I was simply pointing out the illogic in trying to explain something complex by invoking something yet more complex as its explanation, that gets us nowhere in real terms. It is generally good practice for a would-be problem solver to break difficult problems down into simpler ones, not the reverse. I agree many of the concepts coming out of cosmology and quantum theory are deeply counterintuitive but we certainly don't get to them by faith, they are the result of observations that have confounded our intuitions about the nature of reality.