Evidence for atheism

[Jackalope]

Those -are- the only options according to the claim. Either there is or there is not a god in the box. What third option could there be?

What's a god? The question is so ill-defined as to be unanswerable.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ask those who propose it, they're likely to have a specific thing in mind. If they don't, then the claim fails without anyone else's involvement, eh?

"Something might exist" yes...something might, good for you.....and? -sort of thing.

[Jackalope]

Ask those who propose it, they're likely to have a specific thing in mind. If they don't, then the claim fails without anyone else's involvement, eh?

"Something might exist" yes...something might, good for you.....and? -sort of thing.

In terms of falsifiability, sure. Not so much in terms of coherence with reality.

[The Grand Nudger]

Coherence to reality is the measure of what is sound. Their claims must be valid -and- sound.

[Cyberman]

That's where they fall down, of course.

[The Grand Nudger]

Of course. They often fall sooner than this, but assuming that someone manages to put together a valid argument, that's only half the work done. I'm just opining on whether or not we can even grant them credence on a technicality.

I've never seen anything that rises to that level (and so I've never understood the position that we cannot know something about gods..that the door is open in the least - beyond how irritating it would be to have to shoot -every single claim- down for the benefit of the peanut gallery...that's ground that I'm not willing to grant them even in appearance).

[Jackalope]

Coherence to reality is the measure of what is sound. Their claims must be valid -and- sound.

I'm fully aware of that, and I'm pretty sure you know that I do. Your point appears to be that if a claim is not demonstrably true, that it is necessarily false. There's a third option there.

[MJ the Skeptical]

Evidence for Atheism, lol, sounds like something ShockOfGod would ask an Atheist for, "proof that atheism is accurate and correct."

[Tonus]

Ask those who propose it, they're likely to have a specific thing in mind.

My experience is that they think that have a pretty specific definition in mind, but they've never really defined god. When they attempt it, they are very likely to come up with something surprisingly different from their fellow believers. Gods work best when they simply reflect the values of their followers, who insist that it's really the other way around.

Now that I think about it, we haven't had many theists make a genuine attempt at defining god here. Aside from implying that he can't be defined, anyway.

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm fully aware of that, and I'm pretty sure you know that I do. Your point appears to be that if a claim is not demonstrably true, that it is necessarily false. There's a third opting there.

I know....I'm not giving you shit so much as giving the idea of acquiescence shit. The claim -is- false....that's how this goes. If the -ergo- is not demonstrably true -within the rules of the system, that's game over. That's how "true" is defined in that scheme.

Perhaps some other formulation may be true, but that's a different claim, a different argument, and that -may be- true...but it has nothing to do with the initial claim.

If I say, because a, b.....and I fail to demonstrate a....the claim is "false", a has nothing to do with my conclusion (or I haven't fulfilled the requirements of the system) - the statement does not possess that ability, a to b - without that demonstration.

To put it another way, you may get it right for the wrong reasons (call it dumb luck), but that won't change whether or not your -reasons- were right, whether or not the statement itself -and thusly the conclusion, were true.
(yes, I know, more things that you are aware of...lol - but some of our members are clearly -not- aware of this)