Where's the evidence?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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

But alas, alack and sadly that brings us to a declaration that a statement such as ''There is no convincing evidence for the existence of God'' is, well, a positive assertion and in evidentialism a position which demands evidence, and might also be knocking on the door of being an inductive fallacy.

Going back to the OP Dr Anthony does have a section on the new atheist use of mythological creatures. It might pay to read it and take that geezer Hillside with you when you do.

[Maeght]

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

No. And its not a claim so requires no evidence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

Dear Prof

Yes your post was the first I read and was distracted. I will get back to it in due course.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No.

Then you hold a position you have no evidence or reason for.

[Maeght]

Then you hold a position you have no evidence or reason for.

And?

It is not a claim so requires no evidence. Why don't you get that?

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Prof

Yes your post was the first I read and was distracted. I will get back to it in due course.

Thanks - I look forward to your response.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Goingnuclearist,

But alas, alack and sadly that brings us to a declaration that a statement such as ''There is no convincing evidence for the existence of God'' is, well, a positive assertion and in evidentialism a position which demands evidence, and might also be knocking on the door of being an inductive fallacy.

What you’re attempting here is, “OK, I have no evidence for my claim “God” so what I’ll do it to try to find another claim that’s also unsupported by evidence in order to go nuclear – “ie, none of us have evidence so we’re even-stevens then””. Worse, when you do find someone who makes the claim of fact “there is no evidence” (without the qualifier, “that I or, so far as I’m aware, anyone else is aware of”) you use that to paint all of atheism and all atheists in general.

It’s all a pretty dishonest distraction tactic – why not just stop at, “OK, I have no evidence for “God””? – though in your case not uncharacteristically so.

Why though bother with it?

Going back to the OP Dr Anthony does have a section on the new atheist use of mythological creatures. It might pay to read it and take that geezer Hillside with you when you do.

Why don’t you tell us what he says on the matter? If you’ve quoted him accurately so far his credentials have been compromised already, but being wrong once doesn’t necessarily mean he’ll be wrong the next time.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Mendacious,

Then you hold a position you have no evidence or reason for.

The reason for the position is that no cogent logic has been presented to think otherwise.

It's simple enough I'd have thought.     

[Maeght]

I've explained that I have never believed in God and have never experienced anything or seen anything to change that. What more reason do I need?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Mendacious,

The reason for the position is that no cogent logic has been presented to think otherwise.

It's simple enough I'd have thought.   

yes but unfortunately for you it is a positive assertion and needs evidence or demonstrating by you to elevate it above a belief.
Please now do your duty and give us the cogent logic for your positive assertion

I believe I have pissed on your bonfire.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've explained that I have never believed in God and have never experienced anything or seen anything to change that. What more reason do I need?

Several elements of this are subject to Socratic interrogation.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad the Falseclaimist,

yes but unfortunately for you it is a positive assertion and needs evidence or demonstrating by you to elevate it above a belief.
Please now do your duty and give us the cogent logic for your positive assertion

Wrong again. He (and I) just say that we've never seen cogent reasoning or evidence for gods (and nor so far as we're aware has anyone else), therefore no belief in gods. What evidence do you think there could be for that statement of something not happening? What evidence do you have for never encountering cogent reasoning or logic for leprechauns?

Of course you could always short cut the problem by finally attempting at least some cogent reasoning or evidence for your claim "God" but we both know you'll never do that don't we, hence the endless distraction attempts.   

I believe I have pissed on your bonfire.

No, you've just ruined yet another pair of trousers is all.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad the Falseclaimist,

Wrong again. He (and I) just say that we've never seen cogent reasoning or evidence for gods (and nor so far as we're aware has anyone else), therefore no belief in gods. What evidence do you think there could be for that statement of something not happening? What evidence do you have for never encountering cogent reasoning or logic for leprechauns?

Of course you could always short cut the problem by finally attempting at least some cogent reasoning or evidence for your claim "God" but we both know you'll never do that don't we, hence the endless distraction attempts.   

No, you've just ruined yet another pair of trousers is all.

You believe I have or are you making anotherpositive assertion. Ho Ho Ho

[ippy]

You believe I have or are you making anotherpositive assertion. Ho Ho Ho

The bloke's a wind up merchant don't keep feeding him, you're just bolstering his limited ego, every time anyone responds to him,

he knows full well and understands almost every post presented to his limited ego, give him a miss on this one.

ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

ipster,

The bloke's a wind up merchant don't keep feeding him, you're just bolstering his limited ego, every time anyone responds to him,

he knows full well and understands almost every post presented to his limited ego, give him a miss on this one.

You know what old son? I think you're right about that (though his ego doesn't seem particularly limited to me...).

Good advice.

[Maeght]

Several elements of this are subject to Socratic interrogation.

I'm sure that's the case but if that wouldn't bring you any closer to accepting that not having a belief in God isn't a claim so doesn't require evidence then would seem a waste of time.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm sure that's the case but if that wouldn't bring you any closer to accepting that not having a belief in God isn't a claim so doesn't require evidence then would seem a waste of time.

Then if you agree that your position is susceptible to socratic analysis then you might agree that it is such analysis that draws a claim of God from a simple statement like ''I have a belief in God''.

Socratic interrogation also brought out that someone in the light of his perceived a commitment to ''no god'', Dawkins comes down to probably God does not exist, and dear Hillside positively asserted there was no cogent logic for God........... all positions and claims demanding proof/evidence.

You say that you have no belief in God that could cover a number of positions belief in no god, no belief in God, choosing not to even think about God, etc. NOT just no belief in God which is claimed and as Professor Anthony rightly calls it a 'fix' to try and avoid it's own evidentialism.

Which brings us to a claim and position I am sure socratic analysis if not logic will unearth from you.
Dr Anthony rightly established the evidentialist thrust of the New Atheism.

Let's hear it from  'extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence'.

So the claim in atheism is that No God is the ordinary and God is extraordinary. At this point I would usually say 'jump to proving/demonstrating' your claim but it probably needs to sink in.'

[Sebastian Toe]

So the claim in atheism is that No God is the ordinary and God is extraordinary. At this point I would usually say 'jump to proving/demonstrating' your claim but it probably needs to sink in.'

Is your claim that No Odin is the ordinary and Odin is the extraordinary?
At this point..........

[Gordon]

So the claim in atheism is that No God is the ordinary and God is extraordinary. At this point I would usually say 'jump to proving/demonstrating' your claim but it probably needs to sink in.'

That isn't my claim though: for me the term 'god' is incoherent and, therefore, I don't claim that 'no god' is the default any more than I claim 'no THB!!#' is the default: both expressions are just meaningless white noise unworthy of serious consideration until such times as they are expressed in terms that are meaningful.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

and dear Hillside positively asserted there was no cogent logic for God...........

Stop lying Trollboy.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is your claim that No Odin is the ordinary and Odin is the extraordinary?
At this point..........

The argument is about what claims are ,being made. A claim is a claim is a claim. It's not the making of claims that is in question it is the New atheist claim that they are not claiming and therefore have no BOP which is what this argument is about.

Do keep up.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That isn't my claim though: for me the term 'god' is incoherent and, therefore, I don't claim that 'no god' is the default any more than I claim 'no THB!!#' is the default: both expressions are just meaningless white noise unworthy of serious

Good for you sir , move along thank you.

[Sebastian Toe]

The argument is about what claims are ,being made. A claim is a claim is a claim. It's not the making of claims that is in question it is the New atheist claim that they are not claiming and therefore have no BOP which is what this argument is about.

Can you answer the question though?

[Gordon]

The argument is about what claims are ,being made. A claim is a claim is a claim. It's not the making of claims that is in question it is the New atheist claim that they are not claiming and therefore have no BOP which is what this argument is about.

Do keep up.

Well now - since as far as I can see no atheists are making any claims specifically about 'gods' then you seem to have painted yourself into a corner once again.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Seb,

Can you answer the question though?

Trolling 101: Never, ever answer a question. You can ask all you like, but he'll never do it.

Try asking him for example why he thinks finding the logic used to validate "God" and leprechauns alike to be false is a "claim", or try asking him what evidence he thinks he has for "God" that doesn't work equally for leprechauns and he'll ignore the questions and respond only with more lies and distractions.