(December 21, 2016 at 3:47 pm)Asmodee Wrote: …Your signature is an "argument" for the existence of God, not "evidence" for its existence. If you change out "God" for "An intelligent, living universe", that's all it takes to make it "evidence" for a living, intelligent universe. That makes it an argument, not evidence.

At the risk of bickering over semantics, all I see in my signature line is a list of common observations. I do not see how these are any different from more specific observations like:

I have a fever.
I’m vomiting.
And I have a sore throat.

That’s the evidence. Of what is it evidence? I apply inductive reasoning to what is evident and conclude that most likely I have the flu. Similarly, the theologian sees some very general observations about the world and by applying reason reaches the conclusion that something remarkably similar to what one would expect of a Supreme Being exists. These are as follows:

1) Some things change.
2) Only things that actually exist can cause change.
3) Some things that do not exist now could potentially exist later.
4) Some things that do exist now could potentially cease to exist later.
5) The actions of unconscious things produce regular results.

So rather than simply argue over the meaning of words perhaps it would be more fruitful for you to state you objections with the above. Do you disagree with any of those observations?

(December 21, 2016 at 4:27 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(December 21, 2016 at 3:47 pm)Asmodee Wrote: …Your signature is an "argument" for the existence of God, not "evidence" for its existence.  If you change out "God" for "An intelligent, living universe", that's all it takes to make it "evidence" for a living, intelligent universe.  That makes it an argument, not evidence.

At the risk of bickering over semantics, all I see in my signature line is a list of common observations. I do not see how these are any different from more specific observations like:

I have a fever.
I’m vomiting.
And I have a sore throat.

That’s the evidence. Of what is it evidence? I apply inductive reasoning to what is evident and conclude that most likely I have the flu. Similarly, the theologian sees some very general observations about the world and by applying reason reaches the conclusion that something remarkably similar to what one would expect of a Supreme Being exists. These are as follows:

1) Some things change.
2) Only things that actually exist can cause change.
3) Some things that do not exist now could potentially exist later.
4) Some things that do exist now could potentially cease to exist later.
5) The actions of unconscious things produce regular results.

So rather than simply argue over the meaning of words perhaps it would be more fruitful for you to state you objections with the above. Do you disagree with any of those observations?

I'm not sure how any of those 'observations' get you to a god.

Especially a specific god.

(December 21, 2016 at 4:14 pm)Asmodee Wrote:

(December 21, 2016 at 4:11 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: Skepticism isn't saying anything one way or the other.

That's not entirely true, by common usage.  Visit any UFO forum where the crazies haven't driven them off and you'll find the crazies on one side and the "skeptics" on the other.  While the skeptics generally do speak in "skeptical" terms, the crazies generally think of them as "the enemy", making up names for them such as "septic skeptic".  While the skeptic viewpoint may be one of simple doubt, how they are viewed by people with absolute beliefs is often one of opposition.

I would agree that our perceptions can be deceiving at times both when dealing for and against.  Personally, I think that you need to look at the structure and reasoning, apart from the subject.  

When I look at Truzzi's list for pseudo skepticism, I see a lot dealing with being  consistent, and much of the rest is establishing a difference between doubt, vs dismissal.

SteveII Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:Speaking of unsupported claims, this is one. There is certainly nothing you could reasonably have gathered from this forum to justify you thinking that this is 'what an atheist usually inductively reasons'. The usual reasoning, as you will have encountered repeatedly here is 1. I do not know of sufficient evidence to justify belief in God. 2. Therefore I do not believe in God.

Excuse me for inferring from the usual level of animosity on this site against anyone who believes in God that it is not a matter of "you are wrong/stupid/brainwashed/clueless/liars...". While there are exceptions, this is the prevailing attitude here. In my opinion, your mild " 1. I do not know of sufficient evidence to justify belief in God. 2. Therefore I do not believe in God. " does not justify the animosity, so rather than just think that many of you just lack character, I reasoned that many of you believe with near certainty that you are right and I am wrong.

There are religious folks who get along famously here. The animosity you're getting has more to do with you than us, it seems.

---

Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:We've been politely overlooking your signature because of how inane it is. Everyone was hoping you wouldn't embarrass yourself by calling attention to it.

At least it isn't a blatant insult like yours.

Congratulations on your ability to find offense where it doesn't exist. You have to interpret my sig a certain way to conclude that it's an insult. It says more about you than me that you read it the way you find most insulting.

(December 21, 2016 at 5:10 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(December 21, 2016 at 4:27 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: ...
1) Some things change.
2) Only things that actually exist can cause change.
3) Some things that do not exist now could potentially exist later.
4) Some things that do exist now could potentially cease to exist later.
5) The actions of unconscious things produce regular results.

So rather than simply argue over the meaning of words perhaps it would be more fruitful for you to state you objections with the above. Do you disagree with any of those observations?

I'm not sure how any of those 'observations' get you to a god.

No interpretation has been presented...yet. The question was whether or not these are empirically obvious facts about the world.?

SteveII Wrote:"God does not exist" would be the null hypothesis only if there were absolutely no evidence for God. If any evidence whatsoever is presented, the null hypothesis is rejected. There is evidence (it does not matter if you don't find it compelling) so the null hypothesis must be rejected. If the null hypothesis is rejected, "God does not exists" becomes a positive claim.

If there were sufficient evidence to disprove the null hypothesis, the null hypothesis would be refuted. If there is insufficient evidence to refute the null hypothesis, the null hypothesis stands. There's nothing in it about 'absolutely no evidence against the null hypothesis'. Only evidence sufficient to overcome the null hypothesis justifies rejecting it.

In particular, 'any evidence whatsoever being presented' is certainly not the standard for rejecting the null hypothesis. The evidence must stand up to scrutiny, and be of adequate significance. Just calling something evidence doesn't make it evidence. It has to point to the specific conclusion that would refute the null hypothesis.

There's an obvious reason why you would want to make the null hypothesis so ethereally flimsy, but the definitions at hand are not under your dominion.

---

FatAndFaithless Wrote:Gotta agree with Steve here.  "God does not exist" is an assertion, which requires evidence of its own to support it - not simply a lack of evidence for the contrary.  The null hypothesis in this situation is rejecting both the assertion "God exists" and the assertion "God does not exist."  This, simply, is (weak) atheism, which is what I hold to.

Since 'God does not exist' is an assertion that can only exist as a response to the claim 'God exists' I think it's a little different in relation to the null hypothesis. If someone says 'Magical unicorns exist' and I say 'magical unicorns do not exist would be the null hypothesis, what have you got to defeat it?'; I have not created a new condition in which the null hypothesis is that magical unicorns neither exist nor don't exist. The null hypothesis is still that magical unicorns do not exist.

That doesn't mean that stating magical unicorns don't exist as an absolute truth isn't an assertion that must be supported; stating that it's the null hypothesis is not the same thing: implicit in the null hypothesis is that sufficient evidence will refute it. It's a hypothesis, after all.

I'm a weak atheist, too. I don't assert that no God or gods exist. However, the null hypothesis is that no God or gods exist.

---

FatAndFaithless Wrote:Do I live my life as if no gods exist? Sure.  And you're right, if you really pressed me on it, I'd probably say yeah - I think it's likely that gods do not exist.  I just wouldn't be able to give any evidence for that belief besides "there hasn't been any gods proven to exist," which is just an argument from ignorance (besides the definitions of a god that are logically contradictory or incomprehensible).

'There haven't been any gods proven to exist, therefore no gods exist' would be an argument from ignorance. 'There haven't been any gods with adequate evidence to support their existence, therefore there is no rational justification to believe that they do exist, lacking such evidence'; however, is not an argument from ignorance. Not disputing as much as seeking clarification, let me know if you disagree.

---

SteveII Wrote:Interesting, so your opinion is that it is okay for someone to disrespect all Christians because of a subset of them and bad arguments warrant abusive language. So...you think it is just a lack of character.

You're all Christians now, are you?

(December 21, 2016 at 5:21 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(December 21, 2016 at 5:10 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: I'm not sure how any of those 'observations' get you to a god.

No interpretation has been presented...yet. The question was whether or not these are empirically obvious facts about the world.?

Please continue...

Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

Asmodee Wrote:…Your signature is an "argument" for the existence of God, not "evidence" for its existence.  If you change out "God" for "An intelligent, living universe", that's all it takes to make it "evidence" for a living, intelligent universe.  That makes it an argument, not evidence.

At the risk of bickering over semantics, all I see in my signature line is a list of common observations. I do not see how these are any different from more specific observations like:

I have a fever.
I’m vomiting.
And I have a sore throat.

That’s the evidence. Of what is it evidence? I apply inductive reasoning to what is evident and conclude that most likely I have the flu. Similarly, the theologian sees some very general observations about the world and by applying reason reaches the conclusion that something remarkably similar to what one would expect of a Supreme Being exists. These are as follows:

1) Some things change.
2) Only things that actually exist can cause change.
3) Some things that do not exist now could potentially exist later.
4) Some things that do exist now could potentially cease to exist later.
5) The actions of unconscious things produce regular results.

So rather than simply argue over the meaning of words perhaps it would be more fruitful for you to state you objections with the above. Do you disagree with any of those observations?

Their main problem is that they don't point at a deity, so what are you on about?

If there were a deity, things would be thus-and-so
Things are thus-and-so
Therefore, there is a deity.

If P, then Q.
Q, therefore P.

This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Your observations are necessarily consequents, and you can reason backwards from them to any origin story that doesn't contradict them. There are many possible 'Ps'.

(December 21, 2016 at 5:54 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(December 21, 2016 at 5:21 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: No interpretation has been presented...yet. The question was whether or not these are empirically obvious facts about the world.?

Please continue...

You must first explicitly affirm that these are empirically obvious facts.

I would also ask you to confirm that you believe in the efficacy of human reason and that reality is intelligible. Why? Because it would be pointless to present a logical demonstration only to find that the audience denies that human reason cannot lead to knowledge or that knowledge about the world cannot be actually be attained.

Neo-Scholastic Wrote:No interpretation has been presented...yet. The question was whether or not these are empirically obvious facts about the world.?

So you're not claiming they're evidence for God?