Christians

[Ryft]

I take it you are trying to point out a contradiction as well, yes?

That is indeed a contradiction. His signature explicitly states, "God does not exist"—and yet to Rhizo he states, "I'm not saying [God] does not exist." One of those statements must be incorrect, because as they stand it is a logical contradiction. Given his explanation to Rhizo, the incorrect statement is his signature (and should be changed).

Furthermore, how is it a fallacy when God has never been proven with infallible evidence? All you have is a skill with words but that is hardly enough for us to believe in this God. We need irrefutable proof that he is very much real and cannot be denied.

First, it is a fallacy in virtue of affirming ¬P on the basis that P has not been proven—a very basic fallacy known as argumentum ad ignorantiam. The reasoning is fallacious because a lack of evidence for a claim establishes neither that it is true nor that it is false. The rational person believes a proposition when there is evidence that confirms it, rejects a proposition when there is evidence that disconfirms it, and suspends judgment about a proposition when there is no evidence to confirm or disconfirm it (q.v. David H. Lund, Making Sense of It All: An Introduction to Philosophical Inquiry, 2003).

Second, his statement does not reject P ("God exists") but rather affirms ¬P ("God does not exist"). I can appreciate someone who refuses to affirm P until there is evidence justifying their doing so, the way your comment described; but it is irrational to affirm ¬P on the basis that P has not been proven, the way Ace's signature does.

Third, what in hell is "infallible evidence" and "irrefutable proof"? What planet are you from that requires standards of that magnitude? Does that mean you can provide infallible evidence or irrefutable proof for every belief you affirm, or will we discover a case of Special Pleading here?

[Retorth]

Third, what in hell is "infallible evidence" and "irrefutable proof"? What planet are you from that requires standards of that magnitude? Does that mean you can provide infallible evidence or irrefutable proof for every belief you affirm, or will we discover a case of Special Pleading here?

For belief in something of your magnitude, I would need proof of equal magnitude. I believe that is fair, would you not agree? How else can a person believe? All there is right now is faith which holds no water.

Regarding the 'contradiction':

Well its like lochness isn't it? A lot of people claim to have seen it, a lot of people believe in its existence. However, as far as science is concerned, it doesn't exist. Same with god imo. He simply doesn't exist unless there is proof otherwise. You are very fluent in language, but no matter how many pages you write, god still has yet to be proven. Nothing you have said thus far has convinced me in the least.

Does that mean you can provide infallible evidence or irrefutable proof for every belief you affirm, or will we discover a case of Special Pleading here?

I believe in gravity, friction and pressure. Science has proven it without a doubt. Hence, irrefutable. God, not so much.

[Ryft]

For belief in something of your magnitude, I would need proof of equal magnitude.

That does not answer the question. What is "infallible" evidence or "irrefutable" proof? You see, my fear is that you don't even know what you are talking about, which could be evidenced by your inability to describe what such things are in the first place. So let's test it.

Describe for me what "infallible" evidence is.

Well it's like Loch Ness, isn't it? ... as far as science is concerned, it doesn't exist. Same with God, in my opinion.

Since I have serious doubts about your authority to speak for science, perhaps you could cite a peer-reviewed scientific journal that says Loch Ness "doesn't exist." I am pretty confident that the scientific literature on the subject will support what I said earlier.

[God] simply doesn't exist unless there is proof otherwise.

According to logic, classic argumentum ad ignorantiam. According to science... well, could you perhaps cite scientific support from any peer-reviewed journal on this point? Logic stands against you here, and I'm willing to bet science won't come to your aid either. Is there perhaps some other ground besides logic or science that you base this on?

Nothing you have said thus far has convinced me in the least [that God exists].

That may be related to the fact that I've made no attempt to convince you. I am critically analyzing your statements and arguments, not proselytizing.

I believe in gravity, friction and pressure. Science has proven it without a doubt. Hence, irrefutable. God, not so much.

Contrary to your vigorous and passionate zeal, scientific enterprise does not do business in absolutes or certainties. Scientific enterprise is always tentative and provisional, dealing in probabilities and committed to the principle of falsifiability, always open to the arrival of new evidence. If scientific enterprise shared your attitude, we would probably still be talking about the "irrefutable" truth of phlogiston proven by the "infallible" evidence of calx.

[Retorth]

That does not answer the question. What is "infallible" evidence or "irrefutable" proof? You see, my fear is that you don't even know what you are talking about, which could be evidenced by your inability to describe what such things are in the first place. So let's test it.

Describe for me what "infallible" evidence is.

Definition of Infallible:
absolutely trustworthy or sure

Definition of Irrefutable:
that cannot be refuted or disproved;undeniable

There is no evidence that is trustworthy and neither is there evidence that is undeniable to the supposition that god exists. At least not that I know of. If there is, show me and I will admit I am wrong. I have mentioned in another thread some time back that I will gladly admit I am wrong if such is shown to me.

As I said before, you are undoubtedly skilled at the use of complex words and sentence structures, but just because I am not as fluent as you, does not mean you should undermine or underestimate my intelligence or knowledge. If that is not your intention, I apologize, but the way you respond makes it seem that way.

If you are not here to show us why we should believe in god, then why are you here? Just to get your jollies by arguing for the the fun of it? There should be a point to all this. If you are not here to prove what you believe, then you should be here to listen to what other people have to say as well and to learn about different points of view other then your own.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

P.S. I am wondering if you are aware that your signature proudly champions a very basic logical fallacy, and whether or not you care. It's fine if you don't, of course; it's just weird that you parade it so proudly. (That is, "God does not exist. Unless there is evidence to prove otherwise.")

@Ace: He's right.

One of the more common logical fallacies. A form of argument from ignorance: IE that "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" .

The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam ("appeal to ignorance" [1]), argument by lack of imagination, or negative evidence, is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

---

It's not that I claim there is no god, it's that I don't believe in such a thing due to lack of evidence. So I dismiss the claim.

With respect Ace, that is not what your signature actually says .

You signature does not assert "I do not believe" It asserts "There is no god" THAT is a claim not merely a statement of disbelief, and leaves you with the burden of proof. A claim of lack of evidence does not meet the burden of proof.

[Retorth]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, that I agree. However, absence of evidence is absence nonetheless, unless proven otherwise.

[Ace Otana]

That is indeed a contradiction. His signature explicitly states, "God does not exist"—and yet to Rhizo he states, "I'm not saying [God] does not exist." One of those statements must be incorrect, because as they stand it is a logical contradiction. Given his explanation to Rhizo, the incorrect statement is his signature (and should be changed).

Fuck me you still didn't get it!


I've said, I'm not claiming there is no god. I'm saying god does not exist in the eyes of science and observation. As in there is no evidence found to suggest there is a god. So by saying there is no god in the eyes of observation, I'm being truthful. I'm actually saying there is no evidence that suggests that a god exists and so saying god does not exist is a conclusion based on lack of evidence to say it does. I'm sure everyone else got it!

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, that I agree. However, absence of evidence is absence nonetheless, unless proven otherwise.

I think that's semantics: Including 'unless' is to change the argument,which has no provisions.

Absence of evidence infers one and only one thing:absence of evidence. It infers NOTHING ELSE.

I assert only "I do not believe"[ due to lack of evidence] I make no claim, explicit or provisional. I concede the possibility of error without qualification. The LIKELIHOOD of error is another matter entirely.

Argument from incredulity I know but,my thinking goes along these lines: Seeing no one has proved the existence of gods in the entire history of the world, I feel confident that such proof is not imminent.I may be wrong. There MAY also be the remains of civilisation a billion years old buried a mile under the surface of mars. Or not.

[Giff]

As with anything, if a theory or hypothosis should be true, then you should it be able to be to disproved. Something that you don't have the change to disprove can not be regarded as a theory or a hypothosis.

That's why astronomy and astrology is two seperate things. Astronomy is science and astrology, is what it is: pure crap.

To say that there is, or could be, a God or seomthing like that is non-scientific thing to say. Since it can't be dissproved.

All things in the unviverse is all apllying to the same natural laws. Something can never exist beyond that. Everything is science and can be explained by it. The sun was regarded as someting magic and a God but could be explained by science later on.

[Edwardo Piet]

I agreed with Ace's sentiment in the previous sig - I understand what he was trying to get across - but by the way it was expressed I agree with Arcanus, it was a fallacious statement: Saying God doesn't exist unless you have evidence to say otherwise, is indeed the fallacy of the Argument from Ignorance.

I can see you have changed your sig now Ace, to what you were trying to express before I believe? It's now not fallacious - and I also agree with it.

Finally, I also agree entirely with your previous sig Ace - if you meant it in the sense of God doesn't exist in the realms of science right? Because he is outside the realms of science because he's unfalsifiable, and he lacks scientific evidence? Which I'm sure is what you meant, but it wasn't mentioned in the sig. The problem was that in your sig you didn't mention that you only meant 'in the realms of science'. So, out of context - it was misleading.


EvF