Where's the evidence?

[Enki]

With reference to this bowl(of milk)

There is a bowl full of air.

Has it got something in it apart from air?

I say, I have no means of telling.

You say, it is full of milk  rather than full of air.

I say, give me evidence that this is so, as all I see is the bowl full of air.

You say, give me evidence that the bowl is empty of milk.

I say I have no reason to think that there is anything in it other than air but I don't  actually know if it is empty or not, so until I find some evidence that there is milk or chocolate or hydrochloric acid in it, then I have to presume that it has only air in it rather than jumping to the conclusion that it has something in it other than air without any evidence, because that would be foolish. So, my holding position is that it only has air in it until I find evidence that it has something else in it

 

[jeremyp]

''I have no reason'' in evidentialism it needs evidence, It is also a claim.

I have no reason = There are no reasons. Both of these seem to be positive assertions needing justification.

The justification is that there are no reasons. As soon as you bring credible evidence to the table, there are reasons. So bring some credible evidence to the table.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The justification is that there are no reasons.

That is a claim demanding evidence or put another way, a positive assertion with, therefore, a burden of proof.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Distractionist,

That is a claim demanding evidence or put another way, a positive assertion with, therefore, a burden of proof.

Rather than keep dicking around with secondary distractions, wouldn't it be easier (and more honest) just to produce some of this claimed reasoning or evidence?

I've even made it easy for you - all you'd have to do is to produce something that doesn't work just as well for leprechauns.

To put it bluntly: put up or shut up. 

[ProfessorDavey]

But there is no milk.

Yes there is - it just isn't in the bowl.

Your example has no relevance whatsoever to the question of whether something actually exists.

Your bowl/milk example is merely about the relationship between two things we all accept to exist. All you are doing is demonstrating that relationship - there is no positive or negative proposition - so there is no issue of 'proving a negative'.

So the situation is really as follows - basic assumption is that both milk and bowls exist. There are two propositions:

1. The bowl contains milk - in other words the milk is in the bowl.
2. The bowl does not contains milk - in other words the milk is somewhere else.

There is no claim of existence or non existence, merely one of proximity one to the other.

As I have said before and you have refused to answer:

The equivalent to being asked to prove that god doesn't exist, is to be asked to prove that bowls containing milk don't exist. This is classic Popper.

So again can you prove that bowls containing milk do not exist?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes there is - it just isn't in the bowl.

Your example has no relevance whatsoever to the question of whether something actually exists.

Your bowl/milk example is merely about the relationship between two things we all accept to exist. All you are doing is demonstrating that relationship - there is no positive or negative proposition - so there is no issue of 'proving a negative'.

So the situation is really as follows - basic assumption is that both milk and bowls exist. There are two propositions:

1. The bowl contains milk - in other words the milk is in the bowl.
2. The bowl does not contains milk - in other words the milk is somewhere else.

There is no claim of existence or non existence, merely one of proximity one to the other.

As I have said before and you have refused to answer:

The equivalent to being asked to prove that god doesn't exist, is to be asked to prove that bowls containing milk don't exist. This is classic Popper.

So again can you prove that bowls containing milk do not exist?

The point I was making was that, of course, any bowl is never empty all though that is the apparent position, because there is air in it.

I was making analogy to the God debate where any request for evidence proceeds from the apparent absence of anything. The only evidence lacking in an 'empty bowl' is evidence of a liquid content and indeed that is because there is an absence of liquid. It is analogous to atheist argument where the lack of physical/material evidence is construed as lack of evidence.

We are not arguing who is right or wrong ontologically we are arguing about which positions constitute a claim, spoken or unspoken.

I don't believe that I have ever argued that bowls containing milk do not exist so am puzzled by your question.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Dissemblist,

The point I was making was that, of course, any bowl is never empty all though that is the apparent position, because there is air in it.

Except when there isn't. Like in a vacuum.

So that's your "never" defenestrated then.

And why is that a "point" in any case, let alone the one you thought you were making with the false analogy of an investigable bowl with a non-investigable "God"?

I was making analogy to the God debate where any request for evidence proceeds from the apparent absence of anything.

Why are you torturing yourself like this? All it "proceeds from" is the absence of evidence that suggests that there is "anything".

The only evidence lacking in an 'empty bowl' is evidence of a liquid content and indeed that is because there is an absence of liquid. It is analogous to atheist argument where the lack of physical/material evidence is construed as lack of evidence.

That's just stupid - it's not analogous at all. All that's "construed" is the lack of any evidence whatsoever, physical or otherwise. That's why people keep asking you for some - which is when you go all quiet on the subject remember?

We are not arguing who is right or wrong ontologically we are arguing about which positions constitute a claim, spoken or unspoken.

Who's "we", and the only "claim" of the atheist is that he's yet to find coherent reasoning or investigable evidence for gods.

It's simple enough. Really, it is.

I don't believe that I have ever argued that bowls containing milk do not exist so am puzzled by your question.

Then think about it.

[jeremyp]

That is a claim demanding evidence or put another way, a positive assertion with, therefore, a burden of proof.

There are no reasons. Show me a reason. You can't. If that is not evidence enough, what more do you want.

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremy,

There are no reasons. Show me a reason. You can't. If that is not evidence enough, what more do you want.

Your'e just feeding the troll here. He'll use your "there are no reasons" as a diversionary tactic to demand to know how you know that with certainty (as it's a positive statement about the non-existence of something) so as never to have to provide any of those reasons or evidence of his own. You'd be on safer ground with something like "I've never been given a cogent reason, and nor to my knowledge has anyone else" or similar.

He thinks he has to do this I think because he knows full well that, when asked actually to produce some reasoning or evidence of his own, he has nothing to suggest so distraction and diversion as all he has in the toolbox.

Bit sad really, but there it is anyway.       

[Maeght]

well since it is about context let's establish it with an agnostic atheist who is claiming it.

They are asking for evidence from a context of apparent absence. Therefore apparent absence is the unspoken claim.

To give an other example of unspoken claim. The person who states she has belief in God. The unspoken claim is that there is a God.

We know that because Atheists read it like a claim. The mystery is is why they do not draw the unspoken claim ''No God'' from the person who states the have no belief in God.

Blimey, you are desperate to make lack of belief aclaim aren't you'

Ihave no belief in God but could be wrong. I don't assume absence,but even if I did that is not a claim just a consequence of lack of belief. When I was growing up I assumed presence because everyone else seemed to pray and believe. I never actually believed but prayed etc just in case. When I realised everyone else didn't believe I stopped pretending to. I make no claim asfaradI can see.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't believe that I have ever argued that bowls containing milk do not exist so am puzzled by your question.

I didn't mean to imply that you did so I apologise if that is how you inferred my comment.

So I will rephrase.

If someone asked you to prove that bowls containing milk do not exist how would you go about doing it? Or would you say that it wasn't possible to prove that bowls containing milk do not exist?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There are no reasons. Show me a reason. You can't. If that is not evidence enough, what more do you want.

I did put this out earlier but can you take us through how a belief in God is a claim that God exists but how non belief in no ways constitutes a claim?

[Maeght]

I did put this out earlier but can you take us through how a belief in God is a claim that God exists but how non belief in no ways constitutes a claim?

If you don't have a belief in God then are you claiming God doesn't exist? No, so no claim.
If you believe God exists are you claiming God exists? If so it is a claim.
If you believe God doesn't exist then equally that is a claim.
So comes down to what you mean by non belief, and your understanding of what someone means when they say they sre an atheist.

[floo]

If you don't have a belief in God then are you claiming God doesn't exist? No, so no claim.
If you believe God exists are you claiming God exists? If so it is a claim.
If you believe God doesn't exist then equally that is a claim.
So comes down to what you mean by non belief, and your understanding of what someone means when they say they sre an atheist.

Whilst I don't think the Biblical god is a credible entity, I can't say for sure it doesn't exist.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Disingenuous,

I did put this out earlier but can you take us through how a belief in God is a claim that God exists but how non belief in no ways constitutes a claim?

It's not a claim for exactly the reason that has been explained to you literally dozens of times already; the same reason in fact that makes your a-leprechaunism not a claim.

Focus now: a-theism/a-leprechaunism/a-Poseidonism etc require only the finding that the arguments attempted for them fail. And that's a function of logic, not of claims.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you don't have a belief in God then are you claiming God doesn't exist? No, so no claim.
If you believe God exists are you claiming God exists? If so it is a claim.
If you believe God doesn't exist then equally that is a claim.
So comes down to what you mean by non belief, and your understanding of what someone means when they say they sre an atheist.

I see so your belief is your position on God. In the case of the believer their position is that God exists.....and that constitutes a claim.
But some how non belief in God carries no position?

First of all then is non belief a rational position secondly is it not a position i.e. non belief? Of course it is a position non belief in God. Therefore if it is a position then by the same logic that makes belief a position and a claim. Then it is a claim.

But there is also another claim, that there is no evidence. That cannot be a default position because it is an inductive fallacy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Confusionist,

But some how non belief in God carries no position?

"Position" and "claim" are not the same thing, and effectively yes because there's no equivalence. The equivalent but opposite to "God exists" is, "God does not exist".

A-theism does not though entail "God does not exist" (despite your relentless lying about that). That would be something like "metaphysical naturalism" – which, as I've explained to you often, I find to be as unsupportable as the theism of "God exists". 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Confusionist,



A-theism does not though entail "God does not exist" (despite your relentless lying about that).

let me just correct you there. It does not entail 'God does not exist' for your brand of atheism. But atheism does encompass God does not exist.

You, though, might argue that nobody believes that.....in the face of testimony around here that people choose to believe that to be the case.....or that there is nobody those who would declare it........But there again you are the forums senior Black swan fallacy boy.....wasn't ''their IS not one iota of evidence''* one of yours? IMHO Ha Ha Ha.

*Positive assertion,

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Falsecorrectionist,

let me just correct you there. It does not entail 'God does not exist' for your brand of atheism. But atheism does encompass God does not exist.

Wrong again. A-theism just denotes "without gods", not "there are no gods". That you might find some people who self-identify as atheists and who also say, "gods do not exist" doesn't change that. If what you're actually trying to describe though is metaphysical naturalism, then just say so. 

You, though, might argue that nobody believes that.....in the face of testimony around here that people choose to believe that to be the case.....or that there is nobody those who would declare it........But there again you are the forums senior Black swan fallacy boy.....wasn't ''their IS not one iota of evidence''* one of yours? IMHO Ha Ha Ha.

*Positive assertion,

More lying? Why bother when you're so easily caught out?

I've always said that, if you look hard enough, you'll find someone somewhere who says, "there definitely are no gods". That person might even call himself an atheist. And if you ever can find such a person, you'll be quite at liberty to take up the issue with him or her. So that's your black swan charge collapsed then.

Your big fat wobbly lie though is to paint all atheism and all atheists in the same colours as the outliers, despite being corrected on it dozens if not hundreds of times.

Congrats though - you do seem to have invented the distraction from the distraction. To avoid providing cogent reasons or evidence for a "true for you too" god you distract everyone into a false claim about atheism. When that's undone, you distract from that distraction with another one of, "yes, but if I look really, really hard I can find someone who does think that so...um...that's atheism described then".

Whatever next - a distraction from a distraction from a distraction perhaps?     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Falsecorrectionist,

Wrong again. A-theism just denotes "without gods", not "there are no gods". That you might find some people who self-identify as atheists and who also say, "gods do not exist" doesn't change that. If what you're actually trying to describe though is metaphysical naturalism, then just say so. 

More lying? Why bother when you're so easily caught out?

I've always said that, if you look hard enough, you'll find someone somewhere who says, "there definitely are no gods". That person might even call himself an atheist. And if you ever can find such a person, you'll be quite at liberty to take up the issue with him or her. So that's your black swan charge collapsed then.

Your big fat wobbly lie though is to paint all atheism and all atheists in the same colours as the outliers, despite being corrected on it dozens if not hundreds of times.

Congrats though - you do seem to have invented the distraction from the distraction. To avoid providing cogent reasons or evidence for a "true for you too" god you distract everyone into a false claim about atheism. When that's undone, you distract from that distraction with another one of, "yes, but if I look really, really hard I can find someone who does think that so...um...that's atheism described then".

Whatever next - a distraction from a distraction from a distraction perhaps?     

Well at least we've made progress in getting you out of your narrow personal definition of atheism, and, since you say atheism is ''without God'' that also definitionally includes those who are without God through choice......The ''Just don't want to know-ers''......But I believe they are another group who don't/(can't} exist?.

But these are also positions and as Professor Anthony says if you are going to invoke evidentialism against theism then you cannot sate the appetite evidentialism has for all or any position.

[Maeght]

I see so your belief is your position on God.

Its not a belief.

In the case of the believer their position is that God exists.....and that constitutes a claim.

Correct.

But some how non belief in God carries no position?

It is a position not a claim.

First of all then is non belief a rational position

Have I ever claimed it is?

Secondly is it not a position i.e. non belief? Of course it is a position non belief in God. Therefore if it is a position then by the same logic that makes belief a position and a claim. Then it is a claim.

No it isn't no matter how much you want it to be.

But there is also another claim, that there is no evidence. That cannot be a default position because it is an inductive fallacy.

There are observations which some people consider evidence of God's existence. This evidence can be challenged as allevidence should be. I have seen nothing presented which I would consider to be convincing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Mendacious,

Well at least we've made progress in getting you out of your narrow personal definition of atheism…

Just out of interest, do you lie like this in your personal life or only when you troll on message boards?

There is no “narrow personal definition of atheism”. The word means what it means, and has been explained to you countless times. That you might if you look hard enough find someone who self-identifies as an atheist who thinks it means something else doesn’t change that – you could do that for anything.   

..and, since you say atheism is ''without God'' that also definitionally includes those who are without God through choice......The ''Just don't want to know-ers''......But I believe they are another group who don't/(can't} exist?.

Wrong again. “There are no gods” is a claim of fact, and anyone who says it is described by the term that means “the belief that there are no gods” – ie, metaphysical naturalism. Trying to describe all of atheism in the same way is dishonest. 

But these are also positions and as Professor Anthony says if you are going to invoke evidentialism against theism then you cannot sate the appetite evidentialism has for all or any position.

Then, if he did say it, “Professor Anthony” was wrong for the reasons that have been explained to you but that you just ignore or lie about. The “evidentialism” (as you put it) problem for theism is that there isn’t any. That’s why you run away every time I ask you for some.

A-theism on the other hand requires no evidence as it’s not a claim of fact. It merely says, “there’s no reason to accept your assertion until you can provide some evidence for it”.   

[floo]

There is no convincing evidence for the existence of god anymore than there is for any other creature, which  in all probability is mythical.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Its not a belief.

Correct.

It is a position not a claim.

Do you have a reason or justification for that position or dare I say it, evidence for it?

[ProfessorDavey]

Do you have a reason or justification for that position or dare I say it, evidence for it?

Vlad - as you seem to be actively posting on this thread this morning I wonder if you would respond to reply235 please.

To repeat:

If someone asked you to prove that bowls containing milk do not exist how would you go about doing it? Or would you say that it wasn't possible to prove that bowls containing milk do not exist?