(January 24, 2010 at 9:07 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(January 24, 2010 at 11:27 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: Very good point.

You could of course turn that on its head.
What test would demonstrate Gods existance?
I cant think of any.

So I have concluded that, given the present lack of evidence to the contrary, there is no god.

So your view is that things don't exist until evidence demonstrates that existence? I think that view is quite self-refuting.

No, I think it makes more sense. How do you learn about something's existence? By the way you put that, it sounds like every conceivable idea from science fiction has credibility.

---

(January 24, 2010 at 9:10 pm)theVOID Wrote: Exactly Adrian, Evidence supporting the statement that God does not exist, does not exist. If absence of evidence is evidence of absence then by the same logic the lack of evidence for the non-existence of God means the evidence for the non-existence of God does not exist.

Oh - Yeah - When you put it that way!

Indeed, it may make more sense that things without evidence don't exist, but you can't prove it either way. There are many things in science that we didn't have evidence for, yet existed all along. Then, when we found the evidence for them, we accepted them as existing.

This doesn't mean that for all those years before, they didn't exist. You have to distinguish between absolute and relative claims. You can claim the relative to you, and possibly human knowledge, god does not exist. You cannot claim that this is absolutely the case though.

And yes, I would argue that every conceivable idea from science fiction has credibility. Ideas from science fiction are either extensions of current ideas, or ideas that violate our current understanding of reality. However, as science has repeatedly shown us, our understanding of reality is far from absolute. Thus both ideas that extend current ones, and ideas that seemingly violate our understanding of reality are both conceivable if our understanding of reality is wrong.

Science doesn't prove anything. Science just tells us how likely something is. It's never "impossible" and never "certain"; it's somewhere in between.

All claims have varying levels of credibility until disproved (ie until we can be certain they do not exist), be it logically, empirically or both, that does not mean we should believe them! Far from it, we should be extremely skeptical of all claims of significance and withhold judgement on them until evidence presents it's self (if ever!). We should also be active in persuading others to withhold judgement on what are honestly unknowable topics - This is harder than it might seem because of the emotional pull that people have towards specific ideals. Imho our emotional response to a subject is completely irrelevant if it cannot be shown to be independently true, or at the very least if it can't be proved to be true, you can still reasonably believe it unless there are contradictory propositions that have the same weight of the same type of evidence supporting them (such as the anecdotal evidence supporting revelation).

I hope that makes sense.

(January 24, 2010 at 8:55 pm)theVOID Wrote: No evidence for God ≠ No reason to believe ≠ God does not exist.

One modification further. There never has been evidence and people believe understanding this. So that there is no evidence is no reason for disbelief. People believe because there is no evidence. If there were evidence there'd be no reason to believe & faith would cease to exist along with Christianity.

I thought you subscribed to several logical arguments for the existence of God? If logical arguments work in your view, how are they not evidence?

What I've been trying to get through to fr0d0 from the beginning of our back and forth arguments!

Furthermore...

Why, fr0d0, do you consider it at all rational or reasonable to believe in anything without evidence? Why do you treat God as a special case (and things relating to him maybe) if you've got no evidence giving you reason to believe that he should in any way be a special case - and thus, should actually be treated that way - in the first place? In other words why grant him, God, special privileges without any evidence giving you valid reason to do so?

And also: You've said things such as you don't believe in evidence for God, but you do have 'reasons' or 'reasoning' to believe in God - and as Adrian said, why do you not consider that evidence - ... but you have also contradicted yourself several times in saying that there can be evidence for God, just not 'empirical' or 'corroborative' evidence... so I don't see how this makes sense.

And finally - and most amusingly I think - you've also been one to say that you don't believe that God 'Exists' per say, but that you simply believe in him (I think I even created a thread about it?) - such a statement as that does not even make any sense at all does it? How can you believe in something that you don't believe exists? What, is that like having faith in the Easter Bunny when you, being an adult, understand that such a bunny almost certainly does not exist?

EvF

(January 25, 2010 at 3:14 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(January 24, 2010 at 8:55 pm)theVOID Wrote: No evidence for God ≠ No reason to believe ≠ God does not exist.

One modification further. There never has been evidence and people believe understanding this. So that there is no evidence is no reason for disbelief. People believe because there is no evidence. If there were evidence there'd be no reason to believe & faith would cease to exist along with Christianity.

1) When their is no evidence in support of a given proposition the only rational position is to withhold judgement. Believing something without evidence is irrational.

2) Withholding judgement on God makes you an Atheist by definition as you are presently "without God(s)"

3) If there were evidence for God there would be more reason to believe, not less. This argument you make that Evidence for God = Disbelief is shocking illogic.

4) Faith alone is not a good thing, it is admitting that you can find no rational reason for your belief. If however, God were conclusively proven to exist, you would still be required to have faith in his actions and hope that these natural disasters and disease that kill so many are actually necessary evil when you would have no evidence that these lives must have been taken rather than say, believe god just did it for shits-and-giggles, so it is also illogical to posit that Evidence for his existence will destroy Faith completely.

To withhold judgement is to be agnostic - and I've said I can't know. This rationalisation doesn't escape that condition... so the evidence is not concrete.

Otherwise of course I'm referring to empirical evidence. To insist on that to me is pure folly and a trip up your own anus.

If witholding judgement makes me an atheist VOID, then Christianity by it's own definition is atheistic. I like the point

It depends on how you define 'believe'. If it's like you believe there's a nose on your face then I'd agree with you. But when it's belief as in acceptance of something you cannot know, then belief is weakened by knowledge and becomes 'knowledge' instead.

Faith on it's own is a very good thing and the staple of religion. It isn't though the abandonment of reason, rather an integral part.

(January 25, 2010 at 8:52 am)fr0d0 Wrote: To withhold judgement is to be agnostic - and I've said I can't know. This rationalisation doesn't escape that condition... so the evidence is not concrete.

1) Claiming that you cannot know makes you an Agnostic

2) Withholding judgement about God makes you an Atheist

So, if you withhold belief in a god, and claim that you can't know presently whether or not he exists, then you are an Agnostic Atheist.

But you are neither frodo, you claim you don't know but you defeat your own claim by holding the positive belief in the Christian God. An agnostic Theist is one who believes that there is a God but exactly which one is not knowable. Being a Christian you clearly do not meet the criteria for this label.

Thus, your positive belief in the Christian God and in Jesus is neither an Agnostic nor a Logical position.

Quote:Otherwise of course I'm referring to empirical evidence. To insist on that to me is pure folly and a trip up your own anus.

Requesting evidence, be it empirical or logical, is an entirely reasonable request. If you cannot provide evidence for the Christian God that you believe in then your position is inherently illogical.

Quote:If witholding judgement makes me an atheist VOID, then Christianity by it's own definition is atheistic. I like the point

By what logic?

Christianity is the positive belief in one specific God and his Son. If you have a specific belief you, by definition, have made a judgement.

Once again, your lack of rationale is rather dumbfounding.

Quote:It depends on how you define 'believe'. If it's like you believe there's a nose on your face then I'd agree with you. But when it's belief as in acceptance of something you cannot know, then belief is weakened by knowledge and becomes 'knowledge' instead.

1) I don't define 'believe', it has a fairly comprehensive consensus on it's meaning in the English language already, that being:

Quote:–verb (used without object)
1. to have confidence in the truth, the existence, or the reliability of something, although without absolute proof that one is right in doing so: Only if one believes in something can one act purposefully.

2) Yes belief becomes knowledge when supported by conclusive evidence, what's the point you are trying to make?

Quote:Faith on it's own is a very good thing and the staple of religion. It isn't though the abandonment of reason, rather an integral part.

1) If faith on it's own is a good thing then by that logic believing whatever takes your fancy is a good thing, be it benign or otherwise.

2) I would love to see you demonstrate how faith is a part of reason. Bet you can't.

You are an atheist - you cannot know. I am a theist - I cannot know. that doesn't change the fact of our positions... you that there is no God, and me that there is.

This is precisely Adrian's definition, and I'm going with that.

Requiring evidence is totally scornworthy. Sorry.

Merriam-Webster Wrote:Belief

1 : a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2 : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

The point I'm trying to make by being accurate in my definition is that something required to be unknown is weakened by being known.

If you separate faith with the rational subset that requires it then of course you can end up with some very silly ideas as you've shown. I don't have to show you how it works because you're already deliberately trying not to see the example in front of your face.