(November 21, 2011 at 9:06 am)Justtristo Wrote: Because the existence of any kind of deity can be tested scientifically (god hypothesis) and that hypothesis would be rejected.How do you know that "God" doesn't exist outside the realm of science? Most religions subscribe to the idea that God exists on a higher plane of existence, outside of what we perceive as the observable universe. Science only works within the confines of our universe/multiverse, and not outside of it. Simply put, you cannot assign a scientific hypothesis to the question of whether God exists or not, and even if you could, one of the core tenets of science is that nothing is ever "proven". Science depends on falsifiability; that is, any ideas espoused by science must be able to be disproven in some way. If the possibility exists for something to be disproven, it can't possibly be held as absolute truth.
(November 21, 2011 at 11:21 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: Exactly. Many atheists are frightened to claim to "know" there is no god, even though it's absolutely obvious there is no god.I'm not frightened, and I disagree that it's "obvious" that there is no God.
Quote:They'd rather err on the side of caution so they have the upper hand in debate, and some maybe genuinely can't be sure and won't commit to sureity based on scientific principle, which is understandable.I'm not erring on the side of caution either; I'm admitting that logically there is no way to prove absolutely that God does not exist. Also, "surety based on scientific principle" is in no way equal to "absolute truth".
Quote:However, the way I look at it, is if theists can know god exists then atheists can take the contrary position and know no god, and at least the atheist has a valid reason to claim to know there is no god - NO EVIDENCE = NO GOD!Theists can't know that God exists, and that is the point. They may claim to know God exists, but they are mistaken, as are atheists who make claim to know God doesn't exist. Absolute knowledge is not affected by what people claim about it. Absolute knowledge is non-negotiable.
Also, in regard to your argument that "No Evidence = No God", it was not that long ago that we had didn't have evidence for the existence of black holes, but now we think they've been existing for billions of years. So, even though there was no evidence for black holes 100 or so years ago, they still existed. This contradicts your argument. Not having evidence for something says literally nothing about whether it exists or not. Therefore the most we can say about the existence of something with no evidence is that we cannot be sure, and until evidence arises that supports the existence of it, we cannot know whether it exists. What is a valid argument is to say the following: No evidence = No valid reason to believe in its existence.
(November 21, 2011 at 2:37 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: NO EVIDENCE = NO SANTA CLAUS!Yes. Up until recently, we had no evidence for faster-than-light travel, but now we do. Maybe one day we'll find evidence for Santa Claus, although I highly doubt it since Santa Claus is a fictional character. Nonetheless, there is no logical argument which can invalidate the existence of Santa Claus as a real actual person. If you think you've found one, I will gladly show you how it is wrong.
Would that be incorrect too?
(November 21, 2011 at 3:23 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Because I have seen no evidence for it AND because god's professed adherents are a pretty sorry lot.How can you use either of those to comment on the absolute truth value of God's existence?
(November 21, 2011 at 4:04 pm)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: Sorry but if anybody is saying - even if just to make a point - that no evidence = no santa (or unicorns and fairies) is incorrect, then they are saying that there could possibly be a santa (or unicorns or fairies). This is completely laughable.Take a course in philosophy. You'll soon learn that it is impossible to state anything on the absolute truth values of the claims of the existence of Santa or unicorns. That doesn't mean we should believe they exist; on the contrary, since there is no evidence for their existence, we should have profound disbelief, but we cannot go any further without surrendering our critical thinking.
I'm disappointed.
Quote:Fictional because they have only ever appeared so far in stories. However, if we captured one tomorrow, you wouldn't be so smug, would you?(November 21, 2011 at 3:22 pm)aleialoura Wrote: Do you know that unicorns and fairies don't exist? If so, how do you know?
Because they are fictional.
To argue this point further would be stupid - yes I know debating theists makes people like this - but come on!
