Evidence for atheist claims

[drfuzzy]

You really should have read up on these logical fallacies before posting threads.  - - And ooh, I called your OP here an Argument from Ignorance.  My fellow members might have corrected me - your logical fault was First Cause - -  my mistake.  Sometimes the categories overlap and I mis-label them.   I gave you the Ten Commandments of Logic, (which I need to re-memorize, apparently) you clearly dismissed them, as you have dismissed everything we post that disagrees with your world view.  You'll ignore this too.  But even so: 

[Minimalist]

I am starting this post because, so far, no atheist ever showed me evidence for their beliefs (or as you say, "lack of beliefs") and I am curious. I will play the person you believe I am, a "dumb redneck christian" and I will ask you things so you can answer them to me with evidence, of course. First question:

If God did not create the earth, how is it that we have an earth here and we live in it? Also, I beg, provide evidence for your claims.

No.  You're starting this thread because you are desperate.  This is not about us, its about you.  Either you have evidence for your god ( and you don't) or not.  If you do, present it and we will consider it rationally....which you will hate.

Otherwise, get with the program.  Start by trying to figure out why you dismiss all the other gods humanity has created who have exactly the same kind of non-evidenced based belief as whichever 'god' you happen to favor.

[Joods]

IMO he's a poe. He seems very TrueChristiany to me.

Hmm...

Perhaps someone should be looking into that.

[Mister Agenda]

Okay, if you're going to play silly games, goodbye. I tried to help you.

You're asking for a whole science education on a forum post.

Now who is the irrational one?! You are acting exactly like the believers you complain of!

Alright, I will do the same then, everytime you ask me about evidence of my "God claims" I will tell you: "Okay, if you're going to play silly games, goodbye. I tried to help you. You're asking for a whole theological education on a forum post." and that is it. I asked a basical question: "How did this earth come into existence?" and absolutely no one answered me.

I am not surprised of what I discovered. You believe things with no basis for them, you just believe them because "the scientists say so". It says so on the wikipedia and on the internet and you believe it without any research because "it is science". This is just pathetic, and this is how almost all of the atheists in this forum behave towards me, they gave me absolutely no evidence for their claims and they mocked me for my beliefs. It is all a matter of belief, you believe your bunch of people and I believe mine.

Your maturity level is astounding.

Christians say God created the earth. We are not convinced. The burden is not on us to prove God didn't create the earth any more than it is on us to prove Brahma or Nyx or Marduk or Odin didn't do it.

Science has an explanation, that has evidence for it, that you apparently reject. Most of us are saying, here's the explanation that actually has evidence in favor of it; if that's not good enough for you, why should we care? You can believe leprechauns did it, if you want; it's the same to us. We didn't come to you asking you to believe us. Or asking you to treat us like a monolithic group that all believes the same things.

Speaking for myself, I'd as soon you remain a theist. I'd like to require all atheists have at least a layman's knowledge of science and logical fallacies before they declare themselves 'team atheist'; but I sadly have no power to do that. In a couple of generations the majority of atheists in America will be atheists because their parents were; not because they thought their way out of religion. I expect the percentage of rational skeptics to drop precipitously then and the percentage of homeopaths and astrology followers to rise.

[Joods]

He's just another theist who comes here starting bullshit, refusing to actually listen to the answers he's been given and then when called out on it, starts another thread of bullshit, thus continuing the never ending cycle of irritating drivel.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Burden of proof...argument from ignorance...can we take the forum off easy mode for a while, guys?


Who am I kidding? It's always in easy mode.


Rik, get back in your cage.


Tui, a lack of belief in something does not require evidence. In the absence of evidence, it is the most reasonable stance. If you had some evidence, then a lack of belief in the face of that evidence might be unreasonable, but you DON'T have any evidence. All you have is claims.


I'm a little different than most atheists, though. I positively believe that no gods exist, and my proof is in the word "god" itself. "God" always refers to a character from religion that is demonstrably non-existent (due to having contradictory qualities, not being in the expected location, etc.), or (in the case of Deism) it refers to a linguistic device deliberately contrived to have no definition and follow no rules; this is too abstract to be meaningful, which means that it doesn't represent anything, let alone something that actually exists.


If we ever decide to use it for something that does exist, it will redefine the term. Until then, the word "god" necessarily refers to either a fictional character or a nebulous thing that can't be described, defined, proved, or disproved. Without stating its qualities or anything about it, how would somebody propose to tell me that a thing exists, or even that it could? If you yourself can't define it and don't know what qualities it has, how would you determine whether it could possibly exist?

[Wryetui]

Excuse me, Ben Davis, but if you cannot comprehend that in this post there is a lot of brainless commentaries and that yours was lost between them we are not going anywhere.

Excuse me, Wryetui, how dare you?! Where do you get off being rude to me when you can't be bothered to read all of the posts in your own thread? If you don't understand basic manners and common courtesy, we are not going to get anywhere. I've been nothing but courteous and patient with you. You owe me an apology.

I do not have time to read trough the whole page you provided,

If you can't be bothered to read it, why do you ask for the evidence?

I have opened it and it is full of technicism I do not understand...

You mean it's full of the scientific notation, technical language and facts that are required to answer your question. Your inability to understand the subject matter alongside your unwillingness to put the effort in doesn't bode well for the fruitfullness of this discusion.

...that is why I just asked you to simplify them and to give me a brief and simplified answer, is it that hard?

Yes it is because of the question you asked. You wanted evidence and because of that, there is no easy answer or one-page summary that can answer your question.

If you think you deserve an apology from me I will give you one, because you always talked decently to me and in a educated manner and you truly deserve it. This is the kind of behavior I would desire for someone that is talking to me, with mutual respect.

I will then re-read it and see what ideas can I ask. People in this forum mock me because I don't understand words that not even they understand, I am curious how much would some of them understand if I gave them to read a treatise written by the Capadoccian Fathers... You are mocking me for my ignorance instead of teaching me.

---

Burden of proof...argument from ignorance...can we take the forum off easy mode for a while, guys?


Who am I kidding? It's always in easy mode.


Rik, get back in your cage.


Tui, a lack of belief in something does not require evidence. In the absence of evidence, it is the most reasonable stance. If you had some evidence, then a lack of belief in the face of that evidence might be unreasonable, but you DON'T have any evidence. All you have is claims.


I'm a little different than most atheists, though. I positively believe that no gods exist, and my proof is in the word "god" itself. "God" always refers to a character from religion that is demonstrably non-existent (due to having contradictory qualities, not being in the expected location, etc.), or  (in the case of Deism) it refers to a linguistic device deliberately contrived to have no definition and follow no rules; this is too abstract to be meaningful, which means that it doesn't represent anything, let alone something that actually exists.


If we ever decide to use it for something that does exist, it will redefine the term. Until then, the word "god" necessarily refers to either a fictional character or a nebulous thing that can't be described, defined, proved, or disproved. Without stating  its qualities or anything about it, how would somebody propose to tell me that a thing exists, or even that it could? If you yourself can't define it and don't know what qualities it has, how would you determine whether it could possibly exist?

""God" always refers to a character from religion that is demonstrably non-existent (due to having contradictory qualities, not being in the expected location, etc.)", any examples that can back up these empty claims?

[Mister Agenda]

First of all there is no such thing as an atheist claim. Atheists simply fail to suspend their disbelief in god while there is insufficient evidence to back its existence.
Second of all, as the one making the claim it is up to you to provide evidence, not us.

Frankly, I find it pretty shitty of you to come on here and demand we do your work for you. If you want us to accept god is real provide us with tangible, testable and repeatable evidence of its existence.

I do not like the theology of the calvinists, but I must accept they do a good job with apologetics. To quote a post of a site named "CARM":

This article is titled: "Atheists err when asking for material evidence for God's existence".

"Atheists often ask for evidence to prove that God exists. They say that they want tangible, testable evidence that can be verified via the scientific method. Unfortunately for them, such a request is the wrong approach. Instead, they should look for evidence consistent with a Transcendent God. Let me show you why.

First of all, the scientific method is a system of learning that consists of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, prediction, and theory. It is based on logic and observations of the material universe and its properties.
Second, the scientific method, along with a materialistic worldview, necessarily excludes transcendence--that which exists independent of the universe. Therefore, it can't detect what is outside of the material realm since it is based on observing things inside the material realm.
Third, the Christian worldview proclaims a transcendent God who exists outside of and independent of the material universe. In other words, the Christian God is not dependent upon the material universe or its properties for His existence.

Therefore, to ask for scienfically testable, material, non-transcendent based evidence for an immaterial, transcendent God is the wrong approach because it is a category mistake--explained below.
But, this is not to say that there are not material evidence is for God's existence. For example, Jesus walked on the earth 2,000 years ago as a physical man who, according to Scripture, is God in flesh (John 1:1, 14, Colossians 2:9) and who rose from the dead (1 Corinthians 15:1-4). He showed Thomas the wounds of His crucifixion ordeal that had led to that death (John 20:25-28), thereby demonstrating His resurrection. This is material evidence. But, of course, we don't have access to it.

Category Mistake
A category mistake is an error in logic in which one category of a thing is presented as belonging to another category. For example, to say that "the rock is alive" assigns the category of life to an inanimate object. Another example would be to judge the beauty of a painting based on how much it weighs. This is a category error since the category of beauty is not determined by the category of weight.
So, for the atheist to work from inside his materialistic, non-transcendent worldview and require evidence for the non-material, transcendent God (which necessarily exists outside his perceived worldview) risks being a category mistake because it is asking for the non-transcendent evidence of the transcendent in a form that is restricted to testable, material form. It is like asking to have a thought placed on a scale. It doesn't work because they are different categories.
But, some will assert that it is fair to ask for some sort of demonstration that such a Transcendent Being exists. After all, if there is no evidence of Him, how can we know He exists? For that, see What kind of evidence should we expect from a transcendent God?
What is left for the materialist atheist to do?
This means that the materialist atheist cannot logically require material-based evidence for the immaterial without committing a category mistake, so he is left with the option of trying to demonstrate that the Christian worldview is internally incoherent. After all, if he cannot show that Christian theism is false, then how can he rationally retain his atheism?
But, to step into the Christian worldview and attempt to show that it is not true, the atheist must use logic. This requires the use of the Laws of Logic. The problem is that these Laws are transcendent in that they are not dependent on the physical universe or its properties for their validity (See, The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God, points 5-8). But for the materialist atheist to presuppose the validity of transcendental Logical Truths--in order to argue against a Transcendental God--is inherently self-contradictory since he would be using transcendentals to argue against a Transcendental God.
Furthermore, it would mean that the materialist atheist is presupposing the validity of the transcendental Laws of Logic--without being able to justify them from within his materialistic worldview. To presuppose their validity is to commit the logically fallacy of begging the question.

Conclusion
The materialist atheist is left without a valid means in falsifying Christian Theism, which means his atheism cannot be validated as being true.

1. He cannot rightfully require material, non-transcendent evidence for a non-material, transcendent God without committing a category mistake. He must abandon his materialistic worldview, but this is incompatible with his atheist worldview.
2. He cannot enter into the Christian worldview, which is based on a Transcendent God, and use the transcendent laws of logic without being self-contradictory in his approach."

1. So what's the transcendental evidence for a transcendental God, and how do you know it's evidence for your version of God and not some other?

2. Why would anyone think the 'evidence we don't have access to' described is distinguishable from hearsay?

[Mister Agenda]

Excuse me, Ben Davis, but if you cannot comprehend that in this post there is a lot of brainless commentaries and that yours was lost between them we are not going anywhere. I do not have time to read trough the whole page you provided, I have opened it and it is full of technicism I do not understand, that is why I just asked you to simplify them and to give me a brief and simplified answer, is it that hard?

Ladies and gentlemen, how Wryetui responds to the person who has treated him with the most respect and courtesy.

[Chad32]

I am starting this post because, so far, no atheist ever showed me evidence for their beliefs (or as you say, "lack of beliefs") and I am curious. I will play the person you believe I am, a "dumb redneck christian" and I will ask you things so you can answer them to me with evidence, of course. First question:

If God did not create the earth, how is it that we have an earth here and we live in it? Also, I beg, provide evidence for your claims.

Pretty sure scientists have a good idea of how planets form, and they don't start off as bodies of liquid water, floating in a place where a sun isn't present.

As for reasons I'm an atheist where claims can be tested, I suppose I could bring up evidence that a creator god, and the story of Jesus are not unique. Though it shouldn't take a long internet search to figure that one out.

Other reasons would be less about gods existing, and more about me not wanting to worship someone. Especially someone with a moral compass as skewed as the god of the bible. Though this would make me more of a miso/maltheist than an atheist.