AN opportunity for the religious to provide their evidence

[Brownie]

I wonder if Gabby and Sass came out of the same celestial teapot as their posts have some similarities? 

There is absolutely no comparison between the posts of Gabriella and Sassy, floo, can't quite believe you said that.

[floo]

There is absolutely no comparison between the posts of Gabriella and Sassy, floo, can't quite believe you said that.

Hmmmmmmmmmm!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Floo,

Hmmmmmmmmmm!

You're being unfair. Sassy's posts are semi-literate eructations of bile and ignorance; Gabriella's posts are articulate and thoughtful, albeit that I happen to think she's wrong about most things. There's no comparison.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That is what is implied whenever the NPF is employed, which is usually in the form 'I believe x to be the case and you can't show that I'm wrong' where 'x' is an unfalsifiable conjecture.

Yes but that's a fact rather than a fallacy Gordon.

I, for instance cannot show philosophical naturalism to be wrong because it is unfalsifiable.

Some atheist got fed up of an inconvenient truth and pulled a fallacy rectally to ''prove'' it isn't said in polite company.

Other strange bollocks peddled as the knock down argument for naturalism is methodological naturalism......But it doesn't alter the fact that that methodology doesn't confirm or deny philosophical naturalism........and before you deny being one of those you haven't ever said anything ever outside the philosophical materialist box that I can recall.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Yes but that's a fact rather than a fallacy Gordon.

I, for instance cannot show philosophical naturalism to be wrong because it is unfalsifiable.

Some atheist got fed up of an inconvenient truth and pulled a fallacy rectally to ''prove'' it isn't said in polite company.

Other strange bollocks peddled as the knock down argument for naturalism is methodological naturalism......But it doesn't alter the fact that that methodology doesn't confirm or deny philosophical naturalism........and before you deny being one of those you haven't ever said anything ever outside the philosophical materialist box that I can recall.

In which Vlad yet again deploys on his own personal re-definition of the term "philosophical naturalism" apparently oblivious to the problem that, even if there was a term for his private version of it, and even if he could find someone who subscribed to it, that would at best give him a "OK, I'm guessing but then so are you" which would take him not one step closer to the conclusion "God".

Or leprechauns.

Oh well.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Vlad yet again deploys on his own personal re-definition of the term "philosophical naturalism"

As I didn't even give any definition of philosophical materialism in that post you've been caught making stuff up.

Oh well.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

As I didn't even give any definition of philosophical materialism in that post you've been caught making stuff up.

Oh well.

In which the Raj of Re-definitions fails to grasp that his entire misbegotten "argument" rests on the same fundamental personal re-definition of the term(s) he's abused here for years, so if he did finally intend to revert to the correct meaning then that argument collapses in any case.

His choice is either a bad argument resting on a personal re-definitions of terms to suit, or the correct definitions and no argument of any kind.

Oh well indeed.

Enough already.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Ok - many thanks everyone for pointing me to the relevant thread, saying I am articulate etc. I have read the thread now - I am on holiday in South Africa so got side-tracked by 4 hrs of kloofing - highly recommend it if anyone gets out to Plettenberg Bay area where we did it. Brilliant fun.

Anyway - I get the NPF point being made by Gordon and BHS and a few others that saying you can't disprove something is a bad argument for trying to say that thing therefore exists - as in exists for everyone. Or the other version is you can't disprove my belief so it is a true belief for you too. And it doesn't matter what the subject matter of the belief is - it's a bad argument for celestial teapots and gods seems valid. As some of the atheists say - there could be other good arguments for gods and celestial teapots, which have not been presented yet.

Having read the Teapot thread I actually could not find an instance where a theist was saying that not being able to disprove God or Christianity means that God or Christianity becomes true for others. I found an example of SOTS and Alan specifically saying they were not saying that, especially Alan on the last couple of pages of the thread. NS seemed to pull him up on misrepresenting BHS as having adopted a philosophical naturalist position but seemed to accept Alan's statement that he was not saying being unable to disprove god makes god true?

So if theists on here are not stating that being unable to disprove their beliefs means that their belief is true for you as well as them, but are saying ok I have nothing more than belief in subjective evidence that can neither be empirically tested or a probability as to its truth being assigned but you can't disprove it so I am going to carry on believing anyway, does anyone have a problem with that? 

Is anyone adopting the position that if a theist cannot prove their particular concept of god that is the subject matter of their particular interpretation of their religion - the theist should not continue to hold their belief or try and influence others to adopt or share their belief? If yes, I'd ask why? I mean I'm fine with someone telling me I should not hold a particular belief - they are of course entitled to express their opinion since I have the freedom to ignore their opinion. If they want to call me stupid for ignoring their opinion - that's fine too. But wondering if there are any atheists on here who really genuinely care if theists on this forum stop believing or if they are just here passing the time, enjoying themselves by pointing out there is no testable evidence for beliefs? Much like arguing for and against different morals or political positions or different shades of individualism. 

All I can say is I am glad there are threads challenging theists to provide proof - I have learnt a lot about philosophy  - Wiggs deserves a mention. Some of the atheists especially are good at explaining philosophy. Thanks. Enjoyable read. Would be really boring if the atheists left or the theists left and only one group was left. Will look in again when I get time.

In the meantime if anyone has a link to a theist actually saying, as opposed to all this implying stuff, that if it can't be disproved it points to it being true for you please link to it. My understanding is they are saying they will carry on with their particular belief as true for them, but if you want and you can get past the lack of testable evidence, lack of definition of concepts, contradictions etc you can give their belief a go too.

[Enki]

I accept much of what you say here, Gabs. I'm glad you're enjoying your time in SA. Kloofing sounds fascinating. I'm too old for that type of thing now, but I can remember descending parts of the Rift valley in Kenya, not as a recreational sport admittedly, but in order to see some of the wonderful birdlife that Kenya had to offer. Exhilarating experience!

However, you asked for a link in your last paragraph, so how about these two.  Sassy seemed to be saying such things in the 'Heaven is for Real' Thread in the Christian Topic:

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10477.0

For instance, in her post 23, where she responds to Floo, who suggests that Hope hasn't got any evidence for his assertions, by saying:

Where is your evidence that God and heaven DO NOT exist?

Or, 'In the Satan is having an easy time of it!', again in the Christian Topic areas, Sass responds to the accusation that some form of credible evidence is needed to show Jesus actually said the things he is supposed to have said, by saying, in post 25:

Prove Christ was not the Son of God... You see you are really ignorant when it comes to what FAITH is and how Faith and the word of Christ works.. What are Christs teachings about evidence for the individual?

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10367.25

[ekim]

So if theists on here are not stating that being unable to disprove their beliefs means that their belief is true for you as well as them, but are saying ok I have nothing more than belief in subjective evidence that can neither be empirically tested or a probability as to its truth being assigned but you can't disprove it so I am going to carry on believing anyway, does anyone have a problem with that? 

That seems OK but there are many followers of various belief systems who just make assertions because of information which appears in religious scriptures and those, who do not blindly believe, are victimised as heretics.  In answer to the topic of this thread,  what you call 'subjective evidence' others might call 'personal experience' and to gain it, there are often followers who promote a method to that end.  Some examples from your religion ......
Jalal-ud din Rumi   [13th C Persian Dervish & Sufi poet] God speaks to the ears of the heart of everyone but it is not every heart which hears Him; His voice is louder than the thunder and His light is clearer than the Sun - if only one could see and hear; in order to do that one must remove this solid wall, this barrier, this Self.

Bayazid al Bishtami [9th C Persian Sufi mystic]  Forgetfulness  of Self is remembrance of God. ..... and ..... The contraction of hearts consists in the expansion of Self and the expansion of hearts in the contraction of Self.

Abu l’Hasayn al Nuri [10th C Baghdad Sufi teacher]  Union with God is separation from all else and separation from all else is union with Him.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

However, you asked for a link in your last paragraph, so how about these two.  Sassy seemed to be saying such things in the 'Heaven is for Real' Thread in the Christian Topic:

http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10477.0

For instance, in her post 23, where she responds to Floo, who suggests that Hope hasn't got any evidence for his assertions, by saying:

Where is your evidence that God and heaven DO NOT exist?

I can see why that question was asked. Evidence needs a worldview to interpret it. The way evidence is treated on this forum by some, it sets up an infinite regression:

Evidence needs a worldview to interpret it (e.g. the naturalistic approach to evidence, which relies on the empirical)
That worldview must be supported by evidence, which in turn needs a worldview to interpret it.
That worldview must be supported by evidence, which in turn needs a worldview to interpret it.
...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sword,

I can see why that question was asked. Evidence needs a worldview to interpret it. The way evidence is treated on this forum by some, it sets up an infinite regression:

Evidence needs a worldview to interpret it (e.g. the naturalistic approach to evidence, which relies on the empirical)
That worldview must be supported by evidence, which in turn needs a worldview to interpret it.
That worldview must be supported by evidence, which in turn needs a worldview to interpret it.

Nope. If you want to call something "evidence" for a belief you think to be true for others too then you need method of some kind to distinguish your claim from just guessing.

It's that simple. Really, it is.

Good luck with it. 

[Gordon]

I can see why that question was asked. Evidence needs a worldview to interpret it. The way evidence is treated on this forum by some, it sets up an infinite regression:

Evidence needs a worldview to interpret it (e.g. the naturalistic approach to evidence, which relies on the empirical)
That worldview must be supported by evidence, which in turn needs a worldview to interpret it.
That worldview must be supported by evidence, which in turn needs a worldview to interpret it.
...

Just no: if you are going to have a go at epistemology or philosophy you're going to have to some homework.

[Gordon]

Having read the Teapot thread I actually could not find an instance where a theist was saying that not being able to disprove God or Christianity means that God or Christianity becomes true for others.

The key point here is that the NPF has been used, where the precise wording depends how the person using the fallacy expresses it. However, when this is used in unfalsifiable claims involving divine agency  the element (however expressed) that says along the lines of 'you can't show that I'm wrong' surely implies that from the point of view of the person using the fallacy no 'wrongness' can ever be demonstrated. In addition that the NPF being cited doesn't, as you suggest above, imply that God or Christianity has been 'disproved' - all it means is that the argument being advanced has failed because it is fallacious.
   
 

So if theists on here are not stating that being unable to disprove their beliefs means that their belief is true for you as well as them...

They are implying that, and in doing so they are possibly also committing another fallacy.

... but are saying ok I have nothing more than belief in subjective evidence that can neither be empirically tested or a probability as to its truth being assigned but you can't disprove it so I am going to carry on believing anyway, does anyone have a problem with that?

I wouldn't, since provided they aren't using the NPF by challenging others to show they are wrong then it is their subjective personal opinion that they are right and couldn't be shown to be wrong.     

Is anyone adopting the position that if a theist cannot prove their particular concept of god that is the subject matter of their particular interpretation of their religion - the theist should not continue to hold their belief or try and influence others to adopt or share their belief? If yes, I'd ask why?

I'd say no: I think adults and families are entitled to hold and express whatever religious views they want provided it doesn't involve proselytising within the state education system.

I mean I'm fine with someone telling me I should not hold a particular belief - they are of course entitled to express their opinion since I have the freedom to ignore their opinion.

Of course, in a secular society it is essential that people are free to practice religion just as much as others being free from religion.
 

If they want to call me stupid for ignoring their opinion - that's fine too. But wondering if there are any atheists on here who really genuinely care if theists on this forum stop believing or if they are just here passing the time, enjoying themselves by pointing out there is no testable evidence for beliefs? Much like arguing for and against different morals or political positions or different shades of individualism.

All I can say is I am glad there are threads challenging theists to provide proof - I have learnt a lot about philosophy  - Wiggs deserves a mention. Some of the atheists especially are good at explaining philosophy. Thanks. Enjoyable read. Would be really boring if the atheists left or the theists left and only one group was left. Will look in again when I get time.

I'm not looking to convert anyone, and in any event I've nothing to convert them too! I suspect that for the most part what people enjoy here is stimulating discussions on subjects that interest them: I've learned a great deal here from both theists and atheists and enjoyed the light-hearted element that is also part of this place 

In the meantime if anyone has a link to a theist actually saying, as opposed to all this implying stuff, that if it can't be disproved it points to it being true for you please link to it. My understanding is they are saying they will carry on with their particular belief as true for them, but if you want and you can get past the lack of testable evidence, lack of definition of concepts, contradictions etc you can give their belief a go too.

You can only deal with fallacies in terms of how they are expressed and when it is clear a fallacy has been used it is reasonable to consider what is implied by that use. After all if someone says along the lines of 'I believe x (where x is a non-natural claim) and you can't show I'm wrong' surely implies, as noted earlier, that this someone considers that since they think they can't ever be shown to be wrong then they must be right - even so the NPF fallacy doesn't confirm that x is wrong: it just highlights that the argument being used fails because it contains reasoning errors.

[Alan Burns]

give us a chance to evaluate your claims once and for all, we might even get some converts.

off you go..

No matter what evidence is revealed, I confidently predict one of the following "explanations" will be used:
* Selection bias
* Coincidence
* The witness was mistaken or deluded
* The witness must be lying
* Lack of evidence
* Personal incredulity
* Why did it not make world news?
* It would have happened anyway
* It is not possible
* There must be a natural explanation, even though we have not found one

Then there is the greatest evidence of all - the miracle of our own existence.  It is not just based on personal incredulity, but the logical impossibility of a single entity of conscious awareness being generated from lots of individual, deterministic events, and the ability of this entity to exert control over events.

[Owlswing]

No matter what evidence is revealed, I confidently predict one of the following "explanations" will be used:
* Selection bias
* Coincidence
* The witness was mistaken or deluded
* The witness must be lying
* Lack of evidence
* Personal incredulity
* Why did it not make world news?
* It would have happened anyway
* It is not possible
* There must be a natural explanation, even though we have not found one

Then there is the greatest evidence of all - the miracle of our own existence.  It is not just based on personal incredulity, but the logical impossibility of a single entity of conscious awareness being generated from lots of individual, deterministic events, and the ability of this entity to exert control over events.

Only to the logic of someone so blind and biased as you.

So far no-one can work out exactly how it happened BUT this does not mean that the explanation that you and other theists propose, or insist upon, that God did it, does not hold water so long as none of you can prove the existence of God. Your rock solid belief in him does NOT prove his existence and never will. It remains faith not fact

[Sebastian Toe]

the logical impossibility of a single entity of conscious awareness being generated from lots of individual, deterministic events, and the ability of this entity to exert control over events.

Would you mind awfully showing your logic which makes your statement accurate?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Hii Enki

Good morning from Knysna. Heading back to Cape Town today. The Rift Valley sounds amazing too - yes been enjoying all the wildlife info and history the guides have to offer on our various trips. The local people I have encountered have been really friendly in SA - people at the golf club (I don't play but drove the golf cart because my husband wanted company), people on the road, people working at the hotel. Some guy we overtook on the motor-way from Cape Town to Knysna, sped up, flagged us down, stopped us on the side of the motor-way, got out of his Mercedes and opened and closed our rental SUV bonnet for us as he said it wasn't closed properly, which my husband suspected it wasn't.

Thanks for your links - I have to admit I don't read Sassy's posts beyond the first couple of lines if it is usually a reply telling someone how ignorant they are for not reading the Bible and automatically believing as she believes. Also too many Bible quotes. You may be right that Sassy uses NPF - her answer here though appears to be defensive. That's the part I am focusing on - there seem to be a lot of accusations of NPF off the back of responses by theists where IMO their answer seems to be defending their decision to continue believing even though they have no convincing arguments about the existence of gods or their particular interpretation of religion, rather than employing the NPF to try to say other people should believe too.

The trouble with NPF being asserted because someone thinks a statement that hasn't been made by a theist is being implied, is that the implied part is no different from guessing, unless the theist subsequently confirms that they were trying to imply a true for everyone argument because their claim can't be disproved.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

That seems OK but there are many followers of various belief systems who just make assertions because of information which appears in religious scriptures and those, who do not blindly believe, are victimised as heretics.

Agreed - the victimisation is a consequence of people feeling entitled to judge someone else and put pressure on them, which happens in social and political situations as well, though that is based on political rather than religious beliefs - for example the vicitimisation of "Scabs" during the UK Miners Strikes in the 1980s.

In answer to the topic of this thread,  what you call 'subjective evidence' others might call 'personal experience' and to gain it, there are often followers who promote a method to that end.  Some examples from your religion ......
Jalal-ud din Rumi   [13th C Persian Dervish & Sufi poet] God speaks to the ears of the heart of everyone but it is not every heart which hears Him; His voice is louder than the thunder and His light is clearer than the Sun - if only one could see and hear; in order to do that one must remove this solid wall, this barrier, this Self.

Bayazid al Bishtami [9th C Persian Sufi mystic]  Forgetfulness  of Self is remembrance of God. ..... and ..... The contraction of hearts consists in the expansion of Self and the expansion of hearts in the contraction of Self.

Abu l’Hasayn al Nuri [10th C Baghdad Sufi teacher]  Union with God is separation from all else and separation from all else is union with Him.

Agreed. People do employ methods that result in what they regard as a positive experience, which they attribute to spirituality. And those people might feel these positive experiences feel different / better than the experiences provided by TV, alcohol, hobbies or any other coping mechanisms or distraction methods that non-theists employ. 

[torridon]

No matter what evidence is revealed, I confidently predict one of the following "explanations" will be used:
* Selection bias
* Coincidence
* The witness was mistaken or deluded
* The witness must be lying
* Lack of evidence
* Personal incredulity
* Why did it not make world news?
* It would have happened anyway
* It is not possible
* There must be a natural explanation, even though we have not found one

I think you missed out logical fallacies, your personal favourites being negative proof fallacy and non-sequitur.  If what you call evidence is riddled with the above, then it is not really evidence in any true sense.

Then there is the greatest evidence of all - the miracle of our own existence.  It is not just based on personal incredulity, but the logical impossibility of a single entity of conscious awareness being generated from lots of individual, deterministic events, and the ability of this entity to exert control over events.

And as if just to hammer home the point you immediately fire up the personal incredulity engine once again.  Your personal incredulity is not evidence, it is just your personal incredulity.  Teams who are not beset by such incredulity problems are working in trying to understand consciousness right now and it is people like them who will deliver understanding ultimately.

But this thinking of yours reveals embodies a yet more profound logical flaw than incredulity, in that your proposed solution to a hard problem is a problem far harder still - not a solution at all really.  It may be hard to see how a single unit of composite consciousness can emerge from trillions of tiny information interactions, but that is child's play compared to explaining how an unbodied ephemeral superbeing could exhibit this phenomenon from absolutely nothing with zero provenance. I think this is not just logical fallacy, it is an attitude problem; it is a matter of avoiding tackling difficult problems by hiding behind superficial and naive conjecture that only seems to address the problem so long as you don't scrutinise it honestly and in depth.  It is just magic thinking proffered in the guise of reason and evidence.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

The key point here is that the NPF has been used, where the precise wording depends how the person using the fallacy expresses it. However, when this is used in unfalsifiable claims involving divine agency  the element (however expressed) that says along the lines of 'you can't show that I'm wrong' surely implies that from the point of view of the person using the fallacy no 'wrongness' can ever be demonstrated. In addition that the NPF being cited doesn't, as you suggest above, imply that God or Christianity has been 'disproved' - all it means is that the argument being advanced has failed because it is fallacious.
   
 
They are implying that, and in doing so they are possibly also committing another fallacy.


You can only deal with fallacies in terms of how they are expressed and when it is clear a fallacy has been used it is reasonable to consider what is implied by that use. After all if someone says along the lines of 'I believe x (where x is a non-natural claim) and you can't show I'm wrong' surely implies, as noted earlier, that this someone considers that since they think they can't ever be shown to be wrong then they must be right - even so the NPF fallacy doesn't confirm that x is wrong: it just highlights that the argument being used fails because it contains reasoning errors.

Surely it depends on if the person is saying they are justified in believing what they believe and inviting your agreement, or if they are saying they have the freedom to believe what they believe regardless of whether they can provide testable evidence and regardless of whether you agree with them or not? I am reading the theist responses as the latter but I could be wrong - as these are implied statements we are both guessing.

[Gordon]

Surely it depends on if the person is saying they are justified in believing what they believe and inviting your agreement, or if they are saying they have the freedom to believe what they believe regardless of whether they can provide testable evidence and regardless of whether you agree with them or not? I am reading the theist responses as the latter but I could be wrong - as these are implied statements we are both guessing.

No- people are free to believe what they wish and to justify their belief in any terms that suit them: they may be right or they may be wrong. However, if they attempt to justify their beliefs via a fallacy: any of them, then they commit a reasoning error. So, in relation to the NPF when used in relation to unfalsifiable claims involving divine agency then when someone says along the lines of 'and you can't show I'm wrong' then, in effect, they are clearly implying that their position is correct, since they are saying they can't be shown to be wrong - neither they nor their interlocutors is implying any 'guessing' is involved.

However, and this is the key point, that the NPF says nothing about the subject of the argument (the divine agent) being true or false - it does no more than show that the argument being used fails because it involves reasoning errors.

The trouble with NPF being asserted because someone thinks a statement that hasn't been made by a theist is being implied, is that the implied part is no different from guessing, unless the theist subsequently confirms that they were trying to imply a true for everyone argument because their claim can't be disproved.

No, as noted above, the NPF involves a statement along the lines of 'you can't show that I'm wrong' and doesn't get as far as either 'so we are both guessing' or 'true for me and true for you too' - the argument fails due to the NPF with the 'you can't show I'm wrong' element, although it may be that other fallacies are then deployed.

[Sassy]

If you haven't any faith then don't make the rules.

That is the problem with atheists and pagans. Both acknowledge there is no truth or real faith required for pagan beliefs.
They know they are void of any substance when it comes to belief.
However, when it comes to the believers in God and especially Christians they want to make up the rules about what 'evidence' really is.

The truth is the evidence Christians have is for those who have faith. They know God and Jesus Christ.
How can an atheist or pagan come to terms with something they are not willing to seek and don't care of it is true.

Somewhere the atheist/pagan has to accept that if they want evidence they need to want truth.  It has to be a sincere
search because they want to accept the truth about God and Jesus Christ, otherwise their search is useless it contains no real
want of faith or truth.

[Gordon]

If you haven't any faith then don't make the rules.

That is the problem with atheists and pagans. Both acknowledge there is no truth or real faith required for pagan beliefs.
They know they are void of any substance when it comes to belief.
However, when it comes to the believers in God and especially Christians they want to make up the rules about what 'evidence' really is.

The truth is the evidence Christians have is for those who have faith. They know God and Jesus Christ.
How can an atheist or pagan come to terms with something they are not willing to seek and don't care of it is true.

Somewhere the atheist/pagan has to accept that if they want evidence they need to want truth.  It has to be a sincere
search because they want to accept the truth about God and Jesus Christ, otherwise their search is useless it contains no real
want of faith or truth.

Well, there are several fallacies on show here, although since the post is in parts incomprehensible it is difficult to be certain of how many.

There is at least: special pleading, non sequiturs, a straw man and arguments from ignorance and authority - there may be more!

[Sassy]

Well, there are several fallacies on show here, although since the post is in parts incomprehensible it is difficult to be certain of how many.

There is at least: special pleading, non sequiturs, a straw man and arguments from ignorance and authority - there may be more!

Well give us the details of your claim...
The truth is you cannot. You do not know the faith of a Christian from a personal view or from the biblical view to be able to support the statement you have made. The above is basic repeat of accusations from other men which in themselves show no evidence. It is like saying someone committed murder but having no evidence at all, forensic or otherwise to support such a claim.

So if you want to say the above about what I have said then provide the evidence. Go through my post detail by detail and show that there is evidence for your answer.  Otherwise it is an accusation void of any and all evidence.