Where's the evidence?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Divertionist,

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

You are: “God”.

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

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

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

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.

Complete misunderstanding of what was being argued.
The bowl which professor Anthony argues is an empty bowl of which it is quite easy to demonstrate a negative in this case ''negative milk'' or ''no milk '' if you like.

Secondly proof of the bowl. Bowls exist.

Thirdly, You misunderstand the analogy of the bowl you think your demand for me to prove there is a bowl is about proving God. IT IS NOT.
The bowl is analogous to the totality of the cosmos.
The fullness or emptiness is analogous to the status of God in theist and atheist contention. That is after all what atheist means. God is the milk rather than the bowl.

IMHO you and others are shuffling around these points.

This thread is IMHO revolving around two themes:
Were antitheist/atheist claims on this board that theists were actually and conclusively arguing NPF valid? and have the atheist/antitheists been translating mere statements of belief in God into claims for God while denying that non belief in God constituted a claim.

IMHO the verdict is knocking on the door of guilty on both counts.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

Your first sentence is mere assertion. Please justify.

[Maeght]

Your first sentence is mere assertion. Please justify.

No need. It is a statement of fact. What claim do you think is being made if you have no belief in something?

[Maeght]

Complete misunderstanding of what was being argued.
The bowl which professor Anthony argues is an empty bowl of which it is quite easy to demonstrate a negative in this case ''negative milk'' or ''no milk '' if you like.

Secondly proof of the bowl. Bowls exist.

Thirdly, You misunderstand the analogy of the bowl you think your demand for me to prove there is a bowl is about proving God. IT IS NOT.
The bowl is analogous to the totality of the cosmos.
The fullness or emptiness is analogous to the status of God in theist and atheist contention. That is after all what atheist means. God is the milk rather than the bowl.

IMHO you and others are shuffling around these points.

This thread is IMHO revolving around two themes:
Were antitheist/atheist claims on this board that theists were actually and conclusively arguing NPF valid? and have the atheist/antitheists been translating mere statements of belief in God into claims for God while denying that non belief in God constituted a claim.

IMHO the verdict is knocking on the door of guilty on both counts.

Saying there is an empty bowl is not a negative claim it is a positive claim that an empty bowl exists.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Saying there is an empty bowl is not a negative claim it is a positive claim that an empty bowl exists.

But there is no milk. You are just shuffling. As professor Anthony points out you are just industriously turning negatives into positives.

[floo]

But there is no milk. You are just shuffling. As professor Anthony points out you are just industriously turning negatives into positives.

Oh dear no milk, did you have to have gin instead for your brekkie?

[Maeght]

But there is no milk. You are just shuffling. As professor Anthony points out you are just industriously turning negatives into positives.

Not at all. Saying a bowl has no milk in it is positive claim. A positive claim is saying something exists andin this case the claim us that an empty bowl exists hence its positive.

[Maeght]

Have you thought about what claim is being made by someone who says they have no belief in something?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Have you thought about what claim is being made by someone who says they have no belief in something?

apparent absence,

[Maeght]

apparent absence,

Explain.

[jeremyp]

But there is no milk. You are just shuffling. As professor Anthony points out you are just industriously turning negatives into positives.

The statement "the bowl is empty" is a positive claim. I'm making a definite claim that the bowl is in a particular state. As such, it demands evidence to substantiate it.

The position of most atheists is more like "I have no reason to believe there is anything in the bowl, therefore, for the moment, I will assume there is nothing in it".

I would go a little further. I observe that the Milkians have been trying to find evidence for milk in the bowl for 2,000 years and have so far only produced a few anonymous stories to support their claim. To me this shifts the balance of probability to the bowl being empty or at least not having milk in it.

Milkianity has an interesting history, by the way. Milkians believe the bowl was filled with fresh milk 2,000 years ago which then went sour after being left out for three days. However, it was rendered fresh again in a miraculous event known as the Pasteurisation. In the early days, some Milkians held unorthodox beliefs: some believed the milk was turned to cheese; others - yoghurt. However these dairytics were all put to the sword by the true Milkians. The bloodshed was as nothing, however, compared to what happened in the 15th century after the schism between the full fatolics and the semi-skimmedants.

[jeremyp]

Anybody want to talk about Pasteur's wager?

There's a bowl on a high shelf that you need for some delicious soup. If it's full and you think it is empty you might end up covered in milk when you try to reach it down. If it is empty and you believe it to be full, the worst case is that it took you a little longer to reach it down, so it's obviously better to assume it is full.

Unfortunately, the extra time you take to reach the empty bowl down causes the soup in the pan to burn.

[Shaker]

Blessed are the cheesemakers.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Explain.

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Evasionist,

Complete misunderstanding of what was being argued.
The bowl which professor Anthony argues is an empty bowl of which it is quite easy to demonstrate a negative in this case ''negative milk'' or ''no milk '' if you like.

Yes I know – and on a stand alone basis that would be fine. There are various methods that could be used to validate either claims “the bowl contains milk”/”the bowl is
empty”. That is, each claim is investigable.

That though have bugger all to do with the prior problem you just avoided again – namely that the analogy is a false one because the claim “God” is not investigable at all (or at least not unless you’re finally going to propose a method to do that).     

Secondly proof of the bowl. Bowls exist.

And proof of “God”?

Now do you see the problem?

Thirdly…

Your firstly and secondly have just collapsed, but let’s see if it’s third time lucky eh?

You misunderstand the analogy of the bowl you think your demand for me to prove there is a bowl is about proving God. IT IS NOT.

Oh dear. Try again. The point is that “bowl” is an investigable claim; “God” isn’t. Thus the analogy failed before it even got its trousers off.

Apart from that though…

The bowl is analogous to the totality of the cosmos.
The fullness or emptiness is analogous to the status of God in theist and atheist contention. That is after all what atheist means. God is the milk rather than the bowl.

Yes I know what you’re attempting here, but it still fails. Atheism says merely, “you have cogent argument to demonstrate “God”. By contrast, “there is no milk” wouldn’t be “a-milkism”, it would be “no milkism” – a qualitatively different concept (albeit one aligned to your misunderstanding of what atheism actually entails).   

IMHO you and others are shuffling around these points.

IMHO you utterly fail to grasp why the analogy is a false one. Until you can find a legitimate one, there’s nothing to “shuffle around”.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Jeremy,

The statement "the bowl is empty" is a positive claim. I'm making a definite claim that the bowl is in a particular state. As such, it demands evidence to substantiate it.

The position of most atheists is more like "I have no reason to believe there is anything in the bowl, therefore, for the moment, I will assume there is nothing in it".

Quite. He's been corrected on what "atheism" entails so many times now only to repeat his misrepresentation of it that it's hard not conclude that he's deliberately lying. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The statement "the bowl is empty" is a positive claim. I'm making a definite claim that the bowl is in a particular state. As such, it demands evidence to substantiate it.

The position of most atheists is more like "I have no reason to believe there is anything in the bowl, therefore, for the moment, I will assume there is nothing in it".

''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.

Of course it hinges on what you mean by evidence and what you consider a reason.

It seems Jezzer you have provided several more claims and that's before the provision by you of a circular argument for having no evidence or reason.

I'm not saying I am not making a claim. What I am saying is ''I should Co Co'' when you lot come up dressed ludicrouosly as philosophical ragamuffins thinly announcing ''Please sir I make no claims''

[Enki]

With reference to this bowl(of milk)

There is a bowl.

Has it got something in it?

I say, I have no means of telling.

You say, it is full of milk.

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

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

I say I have no reason to think that there is anything in it 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 is empty rather than jumping to the conclusion that it has something in it without any evidence, because that would be foolish. So, my holding position is that it is empty until I find evidence that it has something in it.

[ippy]

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.

Whatever you're on about with milk, doesn't alter the apparent fact you believe there is a he she or it thing you refer to as god, so it's for you to substantiate your claim.

From my point of view I've yet to see any kind of evidence around that would make me want to look for this kind of god figure idea you seem so keen to promote, so really if as it seems you have, in common with most other religios, some kind of need to convince non-believers this god idea of yours really exists, it's a goer, your works all in front of you and lots of it.

There's no good reason from my point of view to even look for a god, I see no reason to think there's such a thing as a god to not believe in, how can anyone know, so why would I want to promote anything god in the first place, it all comes back to Bert's teapot Vlad, in a nutshell. 

Looking at you recent posts on this thread it looks to me you do understand the other posters but don't want to admit it, or you're not going to. 

ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

With reference to this bowl(of milk)

There is a bowl.

Has it got something in it?

I say, I have no means of telling.

You say, it is full of milk.

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

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

I say I have no reason to think that there is anything in it 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 is empty rather than jumping to the conclusion that it has something in it without any evidence, because that would be foolish. So, my holding position is that it is empty until I find evidence that it has something in it.

Actually Enki there is air in the bowl.

So you are assuming ''liquid'' evidence that's why you talk in terms of emptiness.
In the God debate of course material evidence is what is assumed. That is why you assume correctness when you talk about absence..

[ippy]

It's all Vlad bollocks this milk in the bowl, like I said Burt's teapot says it all, don't let him wind the handle any more.

ippy

[Enki]

Actually Enki there is air in the bowl.

So you are assuming ''liquid'' evidence that's why you talk in terms of emptiness.
In the God debate of course material evidence is what is assumed. That is why you assume correctness when you talk about absence..

In the God debate I don't 'assume' evidence, I 'assume' the need for evidence. Glad you agree that absence would be the correct(I would call it 'the most reasonable') position to take when no evidence is forthcoming.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In the God debate I don't 'assume' evidence, I 'assume' the need for evidence. Glad you agree that absence would be the correct(I would call it 'the most reasonable') position to take when no evidence is forthcoming.

Ah, It all depends what you mean by evidence.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Missingthepointerist,

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

Actually it’s a statement of fact for the same reason that you might say, “I have no reason to believe in leprechauns” is a statement of fact.

I have no reason = There are no reasons.

BEEEP!!! Major fail: “I have no reason” and “there are no reasons” are not synonyms. Why even pretend otherwise?

Both of these seem to be positive assertions needing justification.

What “justification” do you have for the “evidentialism” of your “positive claim” that you have no reason to believe in leprechauns?

Can you see now where you keep coming off the rails?

Of course it hinges on what you mean by evidence and what you consider a reason.

Actually it “hinges on” what other people “mean by evidence” if you want to persuade them of your claims. “Something that doesn’t work just as well for leprechauns” though might be a good place for you to start.

It seems Jezzer you have provided several more claims and that's before the provision by you of a circular argument for having no evidence or reason.

So all you have to do now is to identify this supposed circular argument.

Good luck with it though.

I'm not saying I am not making a claim. What I am saying is ''I should Co Co'' when you lot come up dressed ludicrouosly as philosophical ragamuffins thinly announcing ''Please sir I make no claims''

What “claims” do you think atheism makes exactly?

[Sebastian Toe]

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