Where's the evidence?

[BeRational]

'Twould be helpful if you expained why. Am I right in thinking that you mean that it would be more accurate to say that they don't believe that thereis a God? If so, you are nit-picking.

I completely and utterly disagree.

Saying I do not believe X is true, is NOT the same as saying I believe X is false.

I do not believe my lawn has an odd number of blades of grass.

Does that mean I believe it has a even number of blades?

No, I do not believe either claim, because I do not know the number of blades of grass, and have no reason to think either is true, even though I know one MUST be.

It is not nit picking, it is accurate.

I suggest you never get into coding!

[bluehillside Retd.]

SteveH,

'Twould be helpful if you expained why. Am I right in thinking that you mean that it would be more accurate to say that they don't believe that thereis a God? If so, you are nit-picking.

That's wrong – there's a world of philosophical difference between "I believe that X does not exist" and "I have no reason to think that X does exist". The former eliminates even the possibility of X; the latter doesn't.

That incidentally is the peg on which Vlad hangs one of his favourite straw men - that atheism says "there is no god" when it does no such thing. It matters because the straw man version opens up the false trail of, "Go on then - prove that there is no god" etc when no such claim has been made.     

[ProfessorDavey]

SteveH,

That's wrong – there's a world of philosophical difference between "I believe that X does not exist" and "I have no reason to think that X does exist". The former eliminates even the possibility of X; the latter doesn't.

That incidentally is the peg on which Vlad hangs one of his favourite straw men - that atheism says "there is no god" when it does no such thing. It matters because the straw man version opens up the false trail of, "Go on then - prove that there is no god" etc when no such claim has been made.     

That's right - theists such as Vlad try to turn atheism into a belief rather than what it is, the lack of a belief. It is a classic, and rather tiresome, tactic to try to use an argument that both are equivalent beliefs and therefore if there is an onus on the theist to provide evidence to justify their belief then there is onus on the atheist similarly to justify their 'belief' that god doesn't exist.

It is muddle-headed thinking and rather dishonest. We all have thousands of things we don't believe in - if we were required to justify or lack of belief with evidence, then we'd be here until the cows come home. Nope the onus rests on the person making a positive claim that something exists, i.e. the believer. There is no onus on the non believer.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's right - theists such as Vlad try to turn atheism into a belief rather than what it is, the lack of a belief. It is a classic, and rather tiresome, tactic to try to use an argument that both are equivalent beliefs and therefore if there is an onus on the theist to provide evidence to justify their belief then there is onus on the atheist similarly to justify their 'belief' that god doesn't exist.

It is muddle-headed thinking and rather dishonest. We all have thousands of things we don't believe in - if we were required to justify or lack of belief with evidence, then we'd be here until the cows come home. Nope the onus rests on the person making a positive claim that something exists, i.e. the believer. There is no onus on the non believer.

Not having the time or inclination to justify seems a pretty piss poor justification to me.
No onus on the non believer or no reasons for being a non believer?

[ProfessorDavey]

Not having the time or inclination to justify seems a pretty piss poor justification to me.
No onus on the non believer or no reasons for being a non believer?

Is that supposed even to make sense in basic English terms, rather than in argument?

If you believe something exists, you own that claim, and the onus is on you to provide the evidence to prove that thing exists.

If I do not believe your claim that something exists there is no onus on me to provide justification that the thing does not exist - for the obvious reason that the only way in which you can settle that argument is to prove that it does exist (qv Popper), and that is your responsibility.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is that supposed even to make sense in basic English terms, rather than in argument?

If you believe something exists, you own that claim, and the onus is on you to provide the evidence to prove that thing exists.

If I do not believe your claim that something exists there is no onus on me to provide justification that the thing does not exist - for the obvious reason that the only way in which you can settle that argument is to prove that it does exist (qv Popper), and that is your responsibility.

I am not trying to duck out of my onus but I believe you have an onus because you think reality to be without It and that your life's work has been the avoidance of that onus.

You are stealing the default position without explaining why.

Of course we all know why you are asserting that I am the only one making a claim about existence.

You are a naturalist.

[ProfessorDavey]

I am not trying to duck out of my onus but I believe you have an onus because you think reality to be without It and that your life's work has been the avoidance of that onus.

You are stealing the default position without explaining why.

Of course we all know why you are asserting that I am the only one making a claim about existence.

You are a naturalist.

I'm not stealing any default position - but I cannot prove the non existence of something, so if I don't believe something exists, not only do I have no onus to prove it, but it is logically impossible. The only proof that can help us is to prove it does exist - i.e. your onus.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not stealing any default position - but I cannot prove the non existence of something, so if I don't believe something exists, not only do I have no onus to prove it, but it is logically impossible. The only proof that can help us is to prove it does exist - i.e. your onus.

But why should I prove God exists to you when you are the one claiming Gods existence needs to be proved?

[ProfessorDavey]

But why should I prove God exists to you when you are the one claiming Gods existence needs to be proved?

Fine - if you don't want to provide any justification for your belief, that is entirely your choice.

I have never said you are required to prove that god exists, merely that if you make the claim the onus is on you to provide that proof, not on me to prove that god doesn't exist (which would be impossible anyhow).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Fine - if you don't want to provide any justification for your belief, that is entirely your choice.

You don't seem to have answered my question. Why are you the one requiring evidence of God? What evidence do you think is missing? Are you saying God hasn't got employer references or the equivalent?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Confused,

But why should I prove God exists to you when you are the one claiming Gods existence needs to be proved?

You really, really don't get this burden of proof thing do you.

Not   

a   

freakin'   

clue.

If you want to make a claim for a "true for me too" god then the burden is proof rests with you. When on the rare occasions you bother to try and your validating arguments turns out to be false (as they always have) all that's necessary for non-belief is for me is to identify where and why they're false. Which I always do.

That's not to say of course that someone somewhere hasn't thought of an argument for god(s) that isn't hopeless but that has never occurred to you (or that you want to keep secret perhaps), which is why atheism doesn't entail "but I know is isn't god" at all – you know, the huge lie you keep telling and then ignore whenever you're called out on it.

Wouldn't it be easier to try at least to post without lying?

Just once maybe?

[ProfessorDavey]

Why are you the one requiring evidence of God?

Did you actually bother to read my post where I said:

 'I have never said you are required to prove that god exists'

What evidence do you think is missing?

Given that there is no credible evidence for the existence of god or gods ... well I think you can work out what evidence is missing ... all of it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Hypocritist,

You don't seem to have answered my question.

Fuck me!

Words literally fail me.

Look... yuogw ytdwuy u7 ywgi88 wuihwot.

See?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad - Moderator: content removed.

Why are you the one requiring evidence of God?

Because - blindingly obviously - your'e the one claiming a "true for him too" god remember?

Something?

Anything?

What evidence do you think is missing?

Something. Anything.Just a smidgin of a drop of an iota of evidence that doesn't work just as well for leprechauns would be good.

After all these years are you FINALLY going to provide some?
 

Are you saying God hasn't got employer references or the equivalent?

No - he's saying that you've never once ever at any time even just once managed to provide one atom of a hint of a fraction of this supposed "evidence".

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp exactly?

[ProfessorDavey]

No - he's saying that you've never once ever at any time even just once managed to provide one atom of a hint of a fraction of this supposed "evidence".

No - give Vlad his dues. He claims his personal experience (which is of course completely unavailable to anyone else and completely subjective) is evidence. Hmm, not so much.

So his evidence is effectively - god exists because I say he/she/it does.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad Moderator: Content Removed

Because - blindingly obviously - your'e the one claiming a "true for him too" god remember?

Something?

Anything?

Something. Anything.Just a smidgin of a drop of an iota of evidence that doesn't work just as well for leprechauns would be good.

After all these years are you FINALLY going to provide some?
 
No - he's saying that you've never once ever at any time even just once managed to provide one atom of a hint of a fraction of this supposed "evidence".

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp exactly?

So you are asking for evidence because you claim the omnipresent God is absent?
And therefore you are making a claim.

[Owlswing]

You don't seem to have answered my question. Why are you the one requiring evidence of God? What evidence do you think is missing? Are you saying God hasn't got employer references or the equivalent?

Every single atom of it!

There has been not a single atom of proof posted on either this, or its progenitor, the Beeb, Forum.

The interminable 'prove it exists'/'prove it doesn't exist' argybargy(sic) could be resolved, at a stroke, by the theists stating, categorically and unequivocally (sic(again)),

I CAN'T - IT IS A MATTER OF FAITH

Unfortunately the theists are as castrati - they do not have the balls to make this admission/statement! 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No - give Vlad his dues. He claims his personal experience (which is of course completely unavailable to anyone else and completely subjective) is evidence. Hmm, not so much.

So his evidence is effectively - god exists because I say he/she/it does.

Yes. But your new inference here is that Hillside or anyone else cannot have an experience of God.
Hillside claims that any evidence will do for him but cannot specify. I am at a loss to see how his belief that there is no evidence for an omnipresent God is good for everybody.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

No - give Vlad his dues. He claims his personal experience (which is of course completely unavailable to anyone else and completely subjective) is evidence. Hmm, not so much.

So his evidence is effectively - god exists because I say he/she/it does.

Yes, but that's evidence only for him (and piss poor evidence even for that limited purpose by the way).

His problem though is that he expects others not only to think that he's right about that subjectively, but that his personal god is objectively true for them too. Which is why he needs evidence if he wants the claim to be taken seriously.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Every single atom of it!

There has been not a single atom of proof posted on either this, or its progenitor, the Beeb, Forum.

The interminable 'prove it exists'/'prove it doesn't exist' argybargy(sic) cold be resolved, at a stroke, by the theists stating, categorically and unequivocally (sic(again)),

I CAN'T - IT IS A MATTER OF FAITH

Unfortunately the theists are as castrati - they do not have the balls to make this admission/statement!

But God is omnipresent. What evidence is missing?what is it you are not getting about God.

As it is you Owlswing you are saying you have faith but make faith sound like something you are just making up.

[Owlswing]

Prof,

Yes, but that's evidence only for him (and piss poor evidence even for that limited purpose by the way).

His problem though is that he expects others not only to think that he's right about that subjectively, but that his personal god is objectively true for them too. Which is why he needs evidence if he wants the claim to be taken seriously.

Can we please have a show of hands from those who think that Vlad has a snowballs' chance in Hell of ever being taken seriously?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Prof,

Yes, but that's evidence only for him (and piss poor evidence even for that limited purpose by the way).

His problem though is that he expects others not only to think that he's right about that subjectively, but that his personal god is objectively true for them too.

So are you claiming that he can't be true for you then?

[Owlswing]

So are you claiming that he can't be true for you then?

NO NO NO - he is STATING that, in the absence of any evidence, at the moment, it can't be true for him!

JESUSCHRISTALLBLOODYMIGHTY - I'm an idiot and I can understand this why the **** can't a bloody cleverclogs like you? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Burdenofproofshifterist.

So you are asking for evidence…

What the fuck is your major malfunction? Seriously, what?

I’m not “asking for evidence” at all. What I am doing though is telling you that, if you want your claim of a "true for you too " gos to be taken seriously, then you’d better provide some evidence of your own.

…because you claim the omnipresent God is absent?

Will you ever stop lying?

Ever?

I make no such claim of course. What I do say though is that neither you nor anyone else I know of has managed to demonstrate that this “God” is present.

Will you ever understand or be honest about the difference do you think?

And therefore you are making a claim.

And he crashes and burns again by way of a finish.

Leaving aside your gross misrepresentation, what "claim" do you think I've made?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Stillshiftingtheburdenofprooferist,

Yes. But your new inference here is that Hillside or anyone else cannot have an experience of God.

He neither said nor implied any such thing.

Stop lying.

Hillside claims that any evidence will do for him but cannot specify.

First it’s your claim so it's your job to “specify”, not mine.

Second though, you’d be well advised to specify something that doesn’t work equally for leprechauns if you don’t want to keep being ignored or worse.

I am at a loss to see how his belief that there is no evidence for an omnipresent God is good for everybody.

It’s “good for everybody” for the same reason that 2+2=4 is good for everybody: logic.

Find some logic for “God” that isn’t broken though and – finally – there’d be something to talk about.