When Atheists Can't Think Episode 1: No Evidence for God?

[robvalue]

"God", when defined at all, is usually given properties so that it would be impossible to prove it doesn't exist. Wherever science is able to look, the theist will move God just a little further out of range.

There's no need to disprove the existence of things that haven't been proven to exist in the first place. We only have a limited amount of time before we die, and there are an infinite number of things that we can't prove don't exist.

To claim that something does (likely) exist because it's non-existence can't be proven is called the argument from ignorance fallacy. Its existence can't be proved or disproved until such time as a testable definition is produced. There is no way to assess the probability. This is the case with all unfalsifiable claims. And this is why they are useless claims. The person making them, by definition, can't have any scientific evidence either.

It's all moot to me anyhow. I don't give a rat's ass. I wouldn't give the subject any thought were most of the world not seriously caught up in the idea, and this regularly leading to various forms of harm.

[downbeatplumb]

Plumb, my paragraph starting with "Strictly speaking..."  directly addressed the God of the gaps objection your raising.

In fact I even concede it. I think GotG is false. People who make such appeals are wrong.

Ok you concede that your gods only possible location is in the gaps of current knowledge, in fact it has been so placed as to be impossible to finds any trace of it at all. When things are placed in these areas they can safely be dismissed as mythical, that is both my reasoned and gut feeling on the matter. You will keep coming back telling me what I should believe with your arguments which, have no evidence for them.
I only believe in things that have proof for them and your god has none. Ah but you will say "this is not evidence against god" it kinda is. when all the things we have been able to check that were once attributed to god have turned out to have a non-god answer then the it seems obvious that its just a fantasy sop for the ill educated and easily fobbed off.
I am repeating myself, but then so are you.

[Easy Guns]

Plumb, my paragraph starting with "Strictly speaking..."  directly addressed the God of the gaps objection your raising.

In fact I even concede it. I think GotG is false. People who make such appeals are wrong.

Ok you concede that your gods only possible location is in the gaps of current knowledge, in fact it has been so placed as to be impossible to finds any trace of it at all. When things are placed in these areas they can safely be dismissed as mythical, that is both my reasoned and gut feeling on the matter. You will keep coming back telling me what I should believe with your arguments which, have no evidence for them.
I only believe in things that have proof for them and your god has none. Ah but you will say "this is not evidence against god" it kinda is. when all the things we have been able to check that were once attributed to god have turned out to have a non-god answer then the it seems obvious that its just a fantasy sop for the ill educated and easily fobbed off.
I am repeating myself, but then so are you.

That is the ONLY half assed explanation theists are allowed to cite for their god as far as I'm concerned. Their god supposedly exists in a reality or dimension that we don't have access to (if there were a 4 dimensional being, it would be able to see us, but not us it, UNLESS it wanted us to see it)

But even then, the argument falls victim to special pleading fallacy. The goal posts have to be moved and the rules of our reality changed in a special circumstance to make their god viable. Which, in my book, makes it total nonsense until evidence of some kind can be found.

[Delicate]

I missed the part of this thread where you gave your reasons for rejecting the definition of atheism can you repeat the reasons again?

I won't be able to tell if your reasons cut the mustard or not otherwise.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-40031-po...pid1150315

http://atheistforums.org/thread-40031-po...pid1149301

http://atheistforums.org/thread-40031-po...pid1149299

Paging paulpablo.

[Delicate]

Okay. But the scientific method doesn't prove that God doesn't exist. It doesn't even make God's existence less likely.

Strictly speaking, all it does is refute those people who say there is no physical cause to an event other than a direct intervention by God. Such a view of nature has never been taught by Christianity, and the number of believers who take it to be true is not sufficient to indict all Christians. And moreover, refuting it doesn't refute all of Christianity.

So there seems to be a gap in your reasoning here. The scientific method doesn't make one an atheist. 

In fact, one would not be surprised at the lack of direct scientific evidence of God because science is limited to a subset of the operations of the physical world. You won't find evidence of the existence of Henry Ford by studying the engine of a Ford Focus either.

Wouldn't it be idiotic for someone to declare, having studied a Ford, to declare that Henry Ford never existed? That's how atheists reason routinely.

See if you can spot the pattern.......

"Ok. But scientific method doesn't prove that Allah doesn't exist"

"Ok. But scientific method doesn't prove that Yahweh doesn't exist."


"Ok. But scientific method doesn't prove that Vishnu doesn't exist."

"Ok. But scientific method doesn't prove that Apollo doesn't exist."

"Ok. But scientific method doesn't prove that invisible pink unicorns don't exist."


How is it you'd rightfully reject the above list if others used that as an argument, but refuse to apply that same logic to your own claims? Again, maybe you need to consider you got it wrong. If the list above would not convince you, we agree, this list would not convince us either. We simply reject one more god claim than you do.

Certainly not on the basis of scientific evidence.

Well, perhaps with invisible pink unicorns, depending on precisely what you have in mind.

[Delicate]

Plumb, my paragraph starting with "Strictly speaking..."  directly addressed the God of the gaps objection your raising.

In fact I even concede it. I think GotG is false. People who make such appeals are wrong.

Ok you concede that your gods only possible location is in the gaps of current knowledge, in fact it has been so placed as to be impossible to finds any trace of it at all. When things are placed in these areas they can safely be dismissed as mythical, that is both my reasoned and gut feeling on the matter. You will keep coming back telling me what I should believe with your arguments which, have no evidence for them.
I only believe in things that have proof for them and your god has none. Ah but you will say "this is not evidence against god" it kinda is. when all the things we have been able to check that were once attributed to god have turned out to have a non-god answer then the it seems obvious that its just a fantasy sop for the ill educated and easily fobbed off.
I am repeating myself, but then so are you.

No, I conceded that GotG appeals are false.

I just don't make GotG appeals.

And you misunderstand the GotG appeal if you believe all it says is "God is in the gaps of our knowledge".

As a faulty appeal, GotG is not actually a claim, but an inference. It's the inference, from 'gaps' to 'God must be in the gaps'

[Edwardo Piet]

Delicate and EP both decided to "change"
Just because they think they have superior brains
They should both get a room
Their decision to "change" has met its doom
Yet again they rant and condescend and I think "lames!".

ETA: Oops this isn't the Limericks thread, my bad

[downbeatplumb]

Ok you concede that your gods only possible location is in the gaps of current knowledge, in fact it has been so placed as to be impossible to finds any trace of it at all. When things are placed in these areas they can safely be dismissed as mythical, that is both my reasoned and gut feeling on the matter. You will keep coming back telling me what I should believe with your arguments which, have no evidence for them.
I only believe in things that have proof for them and your god has none. Ah but you will say "this is not evidence against god" it kinda is. when all the things we have been able to check that were once attributed to god have turned out to have a non-god answer then the it seems obvious that its just a fantasy sop for the ill educated and easily fobbed off.
I am repeating myself, but then so are you.

No, I conceded that GotG appeals are false.

I just don't make GotG appeals.

And you misunderstand the GotG appeal if you believe all it says is "God is in the gaps of our knowledge".

As a faulty appeal, GotG is not actually a claim, but an inference. It's the inference, from 'gaps' to 'God must be in the gaps'

So if your god isn't in the gaps where is it?

[drfuzzy]

Delicate and EP both decided to "change"
Just because they think they have superior brains
They should both get a room
Their decision to "change" has met its doom
Yet again they rant and condescend and I think "lames!".

ETA: Oops this isn't the Limericks thread, my bad

Good one!  Please consider posting it in limericks, Evie!  
Delicate has the honor of inspiring quite a few limericks.  Let's add it to the list!
http://atheistforums.org/thread-37078.html

[Fidel_Castronaut]

No, I conceded that GotG appeals are false.

I just don't make GotG appeals.

And you misunderstand the GotG appeal if you believe all it says is "God is in the gaps of our knowledge".

As a faulty appeal, GotG is not actually a claim, but an inference. It's the inference, from 'gaps' to 'God must be in the gaps'

So if your god isn't in the gaps where is it?

"Outside time and space", the contradictory assertion that would by definition be impossible to know either way and thus is entirely moot.