Where's the evidence?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Burdenofproofshifterist.

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.

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 he crashes and burns again by way of a finish.

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

There is as I see it only one position that might have a claim to no burden and that is agnosticism.
Of course anyone claiming there is no evidence for God are making a claim not least since they are discounting what other people consider as information held.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Confusionist,

There is as I see it only one position that might have a claim to no burden and that is agnosticism.

That's because you either don't know or choose wilfully to misrepresent what "atheism" means.

Of course anyone claiming there is no evidence for God are making a claim not least since they are discounting what other people consider as information held.

Of course you're lying again. Did I say "there is no evidence" or did I say that there's none that I'm aware of?

I've told you already - if you insist on lying, at least try to be a bit less obvious about it.

And "what other people consider to be an information field" as you put it tells you nothing about whether anyone else should agree.

I've told you countless times how to dig your way out of the hole - just find some evidence that doesn't work just as well for leprechauns. 

Why don't you at least try to do that?

[ProfessorDavey]

There is as I see it only one position that might have a claim to no burden and that is agnosticism.

Nope - agnosticism is about knowledge, not about claims.

So we shift from agnosticism when (or if) a claim is proven to be true or not true - and in the case of the existence of a god then the only way in which the claim can be proved is if it is proven that god exists as you cannot conclusively prove the non existence of god.

The burden of proof, and its onus, is about those making claims of the existence of something, not about knowledge which is about the proof itself.

So lets imagine you believe in leprechauns (you are a leprechaunist) yet you don't know for certain that the exist (i.e. you are agnostic in relation to the existence of leprechauns) then the burden of proof still rests with you. If you are no longer agnostic, which will only happen if we actually know whether leprechauns exist) then the proof will have been settled, so there is no longer a burden of proof as the proof already exists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope - agnosticism is about knowledge, not about claims.

So we shift from agnosticism when (or if) a claim is proven to be true or not true - and in the case of the existence of a god then the only way in which the claim can be proved is if it is proven that god exists as you cannot conclusively prove the non existence of god.

The burden of proof, and its onus, is about those making claims of the existence of something, not about knowledge which is about the proof itself.

So lets imagine you believe in leprechauns (you are a leprechaunist) yet you don't know for certain that the exist (i.e. you are agnostic in relation to the existence of leprechauns) then the burden of proof still rests with you. If you are no longer agnostic, which will only happen if we actually know whether leprechauns exist) then the proof will have been settled, so there is no longer a burden of proof as the proof already exists.

To return to the OP Professor Anthony takes issue with the idea that there are even positions which are immune from the the demands of evidentialism.
Evidentialism is the project which the person who requires evidence sets out on.

You say you cannot prove there isn't a God, I would say 'Tough'. Dr Anthony dismantles the idea that you can never prove or demonstrate a negative by his example of the bowl of milk. We can demonstrate for example that a bowl is empty of milk.

In debating the omnipresent God the position of both the agnostic and the atheist is that ''the bowl is empty'' hence the request for evidence.
The theist will say that ''the bowl is full''. Now let us investigate why the atheist and agnostic are perceiving absence of evidence. It must be a position on the nature of evidence. I think we all know where we are going here.

In terms of Leprechauns, I wonder if they are omnipresent. If I believe in them evidentialism demands evidence but it also demands evidence for why I might claim ''bowl empty''

[Maeght]

Seems simple to me. Claims require evidence. To have no personal belief in God or gods is not a claim so doesn't require evidence.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Falseanalogist,

You say you cannot prove there isn't a God, I would say 'Tough'. Dr Anthony dismantles the idea that you can never prove or demonstrate a negative by his example of the bowl of milk. We can demonstrate for example that a bowl is empty of milk.

In debating the omnipresent God the position of both the agnostic and the atheist is that ''the bowl is empty'' hence the request for evidence.
The theist will say that ''the bowl is full''. Now let us investigate why the atheist and agnostic are perceiving absence of evidence. It must be a position on the nature of evidence. I think we all know where we are going here.

Yes "we" do - down the path of the false analogy. How would you propose that anyone investigate this claim of a supernatural bowl of milk?

You'd have been better off claiming that the orbiting teapot was full of tea.

In terms of Leprechauns, I wonder if they are omnipresent.

You can wonder about that all you like - it has nothing to do with their non-investigability though.

If I believe in them evidentialism demands evidence but it also demands evidence for why I might claim ''bowl empty''

Stop lying. No-one says "bowl empty". What they actually say is more like, "what bowl"?

[ProfessorDavey]

You say you cannot prove there isn't a God, I would say 'Tough'. Dr Anthony dismantles the idea that you can never prove or demonstrate a negative by his example of the bowl of milk. We can demonstrate for example that a bowl is empty of milk.

Nope - faulty thinking. Firstly the claim of god is of a supernatural entity - so to provide a more appropriate analogy the bowl may be full of supernatural invisible milk that fails to manifest itself when tests are used to assess its present. Can I prove that it isn't

But the claim for god isn't one of a single defined bowl which may or may not be full of milk - it is a nebulous Popper-esque claim - that all bowls are empty of milk, in other words that bowls containing milk do not exist. Again to link to the claim of god - if there are n bowls in the universe (or even outside it) it matters not whether n-1 bowls are empty of milk, the claim isn't proven until it is demonstrated that all bowls are empty of milk. And that final bowl full of milk might be god.

So can you prove that bowls containing milk do not exist.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Vlad the Confusionist,

That's because you either don't know or choose wilfully to misrepresent what "atheism" means.

Of course you're lying again. Did I say "there is no evidence" or did I say that there's none that I'm aware of?

I've told you already - if you insist on lying, at least try to be a bit less obvious about it.

And "what other people consider to be an information field" as you put it tells you nothing about whether anyone else should agree.

I've told you countless times how to dig your way out of the hole - just find some evidence that doesn't work just as well for leprechauns. 

Why don't you at least try to do that?

The approach you are advocating is one that I have come to refer to as bluehillsiding, i.e. asking someone to swim from A to B but not allowing them to use a swimming stroke.

Your response to what is proffered is what I am from now on calling bluehillshite, namely posting something that claims to be a rebuttal / falsification but can be discarded because it is based on a false premise.

If you really cannot see the flaw in just find some evidence that doesn't work just as well for leprechauns then I'm going to struggle to find a word in the dictionary for what is wrong with you!

[floo]

The approach you are advocating is one that I have come to refer to as bluehillsiding, i.e. asking someone to swim from A to B but not allowing them to use a swimming stroke.

Your response to what is proffered is what I am from now on calling bluehillshite, namely posting something that claims to be a rebuttal / falsification but can be discarded because it is based on a false premise.

If you really cannot see the flaw in just find some evidence that doesn't work just as well for leprechauns then I'm going to struggle to find a word in the dictionary for what is wrong with you!

And what false premise would that be?

[Owlswing]

And what false premise would that be?

He's just another Christian trying to take the heat off Vlad who, in a couple more days digging, is going to pop up somehwere in the Southern hemisphere!

Probably somewhere where the sharks will ensure his return swim to the UK will be in a World Record time!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rubber Spatula of Irrationalism,

The approach you are advocating is one that I have come to refer to as bluehillsiding, i.e. asking someone to swim from A to B but not allowing them to use a swimming stroke.

Actually I’m asking what method he would use to get from A to B. So far at least though, answer comes there none.

Worse, while anyone is of course perfectly allowed to use whatever “stroke” he likes, he cannot then deny the same stroke to someone else. Thus if, say, he finally attempts an argument for “God” that works equally for leprechauns, he cannot then say that the same argument is denied to the lerprechaunist.

Hence the question: what evidence does he propose that does not work just as well for leprechauns?

As Vlad is entirely unwilling or unable to answer that, perhaps you could help him out with a suggestion of your own though?

Your response to what is proffered is what I am from now on calling bluehillshite, namely posting something that claims to be a rebuttal / falsification but can be discarded because it is based on a false premise.

That could be true. To find out though, you’d have to tell us what you think that false premise to be, and why you think I rely on it.

So far though, all we have is your vague assertion on the matter.

If you really cannot see the flaw in just find some evidence that doesn't work just as well for leprechauns then I'm going to struggle to find a word in the dictionary for what is wrong with you!

Save yourself the time and just try to answer the question: what evidence do you think there is for your “God” that doesn’t work just as well for leprechauns?

As you seem confident of your position, it shouldn’t be too difficult for you to answer that I’d have thought.

OK, I’ve got a jumbo bottle of Tizer in and a family pack of Twiglets and I’m all snuggly on the sofa…

…go for it!

[SusanDoris]

Another question to wait for an answer with bated breath!! I'm always optimistic...

[Owlswing]

Another question to wait for an answer with bated breath!! I'm always optimistic...

Optimistic? You need to be - like in the year 2750 optimistic!

[ippy]

Another question to wait for an answer with bated breath!! I'm always optimistic...

At least here, like most other enlightened countries there's fewer and fewer of them every time you see another poll.

No doubt they'll be alongside the odd few Zeus believers we still have, just on the harmless side of having to be locked away for their own good.

ippy

[Owlswing]

At least here, like most other enlightened countries there's fewer and fewer of them every time you see another poll.

No doubt they'll be alongside the odd few Zeus believers we still have, just on the harmless side of having to be locked away for their own good.

ippy

I'm glad that you see such a bright future before me.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Seems simple to me. Claims require evidence. To have no personal belief in God or gods is not a claim so doesn't require evidence.

Claims do require evidence.
The question here is who is making a claim, how it is being made and the context.

For example Who has the burden of proof here: The bowl is full or the bowl is empty.
Curved earthers or flat earthers?

And can you spot the hidden claim here................It is up to you to prove the Buddha existed?

[ProfessorDavey]

The bowl is full or the bowl is empty.

Have you proved yet that that bowls containing milk do not exist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Have you proved yet that that bowls containing milk do not exist.

Eh?

[ProfessorDavey]

Eh?

See reply 181.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

See reply 181.

Briefly
Your reply was non sequitur. There was also a possible special plead ''You are talking about the supernatural''.

 I was merely demonstrating you can demonstrate that there is no milk in a bowl.

You have probably though successfully diverted people from the important post I made a few posts back.

Evidentialism demands evidence of any position and cannot be turned of and on at will.

While we are about it

Why should;

I have a belief in God require evidence and I have no belief in God not.

[Maeght]

Claims do require evidence.
The question here is who is making a claim, how it is being made and the context.

Ageeed.

For example Who has the burden of proof here: The bowl is full or the bowl is empty.
Curved earthers or flat earthers?

Whoever makes the claim.

[quore quote]And can you spot the hidden claim here[/quote]

No. Can you explain please.

It is up to you to prove the Buddha existed?

Sorry? Is that a question? Not clear.

If I claimed Buddha existed I would need evidence. Your point?
[/quote]

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Ageeed.

Whoever makes the claim.

[quore quote]And can you spot the hidden claim here

No. Can you explain please.

Sorry? Is that a question? Not clear.

If I claimed Buddha existed I would need evidence. Your point?

The point is ''why are you asking for evidence that the Budhha existed''.......I.e. you doubt that he did. In other words your context is buddhaless. A Buddhaless context ALSO needs evidence.
You are proceeding from the baddhaless state.

What you should be doing is asking for evidence of the Buddha and evidence for the Buddhaless context.

You never get that from ''The agnostic atheist''.

[Maeght]

The point is ''why are you asking for evidence that the Budhha existed''.......I.e. you doubt that he did. In other words your context is buddhaless. A Buddhaless context ALSO needs evidence.
You are proceeding from the baddhaless state.

What you should be doing is asking for evidence of the Buddha and evidence for the Buddhaless context.

You never get that from ''The agnostic atheist''.

Having no belief in something or someone is not a claim so requires no evidence. If someone claims Buddha didn't exist they would require evidence. If they say they doubt Buddha existed then they should provide evidence or reasons why. Beyond that I think you are overcomplicating things.

[ippy]

I'm glad that you see such a bright future before me.

Sorry about that Owl while I've a lot of respect for people like your good self the airy fairy pov will have to be consigned to the large dustbin of time in the end, along side figures like Zeus which I'm sure would have been an equally revered idea in it's time, now redundant.

Rationality and logic within the relms of religious belief is a quality that's a bit thin on the ground putting it mildly.

ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Divertionist,

Claims do require evidence.

Well, that’s progress of a kind I guess.

The question here is who is making a claim,…

You are: “God”.

…how it is being made and the context.

So far at least, the only “how” you’ve suggested is “that’s my interpretation of my experience”.

For example Who has the burden of proof here: The bowl is full or the bowl is empty.

You do – to demonstrate that there’s a bowl in the first place, and to propose a method to investigate the claim.

Curved earthers or flat earthers?

Irrelevant. No-one disputes that there is an earth to investigate in the first place.

And can you spot the hidden claim here................It is up to you to prove the Buddha existed?

There is no “hidden claim”, and your false analogy of the bowl and milk was detonated back in Reply 180 by the way, even though you just ignored it.. The investigable and the non-investigable are not analogous.