Hello soulcalm17

[Sheldon]

Public opinion, so-called witness opinion, is subjective.

Can something which is subjective be evidence?

All salient information is evidence, that doesn't mean it is sufficient. The more objectively it can be verified, the more compelling it becomes, the more of that type of evidence you have, the more compelling I'd find it.

When people say there is evidence for X, what they mean is they think there is sufficient evidence that X is true, and so they believe X. When people say there is no evidence for X, they often mean they don't believe X, as there is insufficient evidence, or what is purportedly evidence is of too low a standard.

[Sheldon]

It's rational to understand that just because most people enjoy the food of a particular establishment does not mean I will also enjoy the food or that it is the best restaurant in town.

OK, so for you, the fact that 99 out of 100 people name one restaurant as best does not increase the credibility of the statement "That restaurant is best."

You already know it's a fallacious claim, do you imagine the fact the claim would be trivial if true, not extraordinary at all, makes the claim any less fallacious? Do you accept that logic is a method that adheres to strict principles of validation with one purpose, to discard weak or poorly reasoned arguments? 

If our beliefs are defended by arguments that are demonstrably irrational, what, if anything, does that suggest to you? 

For context, what if the people in your scenario were claiming the restaurant used magic, to produce the best food you've ever tasted?

[Belacqua]

Now I keep asking questions, and you keep ignoring them, while I promptly and honestly answer yours, so FYI, I shall not be answering another of your questions until you make some effort to answer mine that you've ignored. Debate requires reciprocity, and I am starting to feel a little like I'm being preached at, as you make claims, then when I address them, you either move on to new ones ignoring what I've said, or focus on minutia, like the numbers debate, which was tangential to evidencing a deity. Since you seem to be trying to make its existence an unfalsifiable concept. I explained my views on such ideas, and you ignored that completely. 

That's not the way I see it, obviously, but I agree that we approach these things very differently. So differently that it would require a lot more patience and careful working-out to have any kind of productive conversation. 

There are things which seem self-evident and undeniable to you about which I am much less convinced. I don't really want to go on to the theological part of the discussion until I've addressed the priors on which you are making your judgments. 

But I suspect this is not what you want to work on, so I certainly won't insist. 

Your beliefs are much closer to the consensus on this forum than mine are, so you will do well with other people here, I'm pretty sure. Good luck to you.

[Sheldon]

Now I keep asking questions, and you keep ignoring them, while I promptly and honestly answer yours, so FYI, I shall not be answering another of your questions until you make some effort to answer mine that you've ignored. Debate requires reciprocity, and I am starting to feel a little like I'm being preached at, as you make claims, then when I address them, you either move on to new ones ignoring what I've said, or focus on minutia, like the numbers debate, which was tangential to evidencing a deity. Since you seem to be trying to make its existence an unfalsifiable concept. I explained my views on such ideas, and you ignored that completely. 

That's not the way I see it, obviously, 

Yet my question remains unanswered, again. 

Try this, what is the most compelling reason you think you have to believe a deity exists outside of the human imagination? I already asked, but it went unanswered? 

Surely that is the best place to start, with the best reason you have to believe something. 

There are things which seem self-evident and undeniable to you about which I am much less convinced. 

Like what? I can't critically examine a claim that tells me nothing, and I am the best placed to say what I do and do not deem undeniable btw. 

I don't really want to go on to the theological part of the discussion until I've addressed the priors on which you are making your judgments. 

I either will or will not find your reasons for belief compelling, you already do obviously. All that will happen is I will examine the claims critically and as objectively as I am able. I don't need handling or prep work. Parenthetically anything I assert can likewise be critically examined and subjected to rational scrutiny. That's part of the reason I bother with debate, to examine my own ideas, and have others examine them critically. 

I suspect this is not what you want to work on, so I certainly won't insist. 

Stop suspecting start asking would be my advice, and I have no idea what you mean by "work on" or what you're referring to? It does not however seem to involve you answering my questions when I ask them. 

Your beliefs are much closer to the consensus on this forum than mine are,

What beliefs? Atheism is not a belief, it is the lack or absence of one, but I hold all beliefs to the same standard, no matter who is making them. 

so you will do well with other people here, I'm pretty sure. Good luck to you.

I would hope I will do well, because I express myself honestly, and without reservation, that subject all ideas and beliefs to the same standard, and want them all subjected to critical scrutiny, especially my own of course. 
There is no belief or position I would not abandon if the objective evidence demanded it, if the idea is unfalsifiable then I must remain agnostic, but also disbelieving as I said previously this is the only rational position I can see. Believing all unfalsifiable claims is irrational, as it must involve believing contradictory claims, believing some and not others, given the impossibility of evidence either way, must involve bias for or against, and that is the definition of closed minded.

I think it's important to note, that when I say I don't believe a claim, that does not rationally infer I believe the opposite either. This would be especially true of unfalsifiable claims.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

@Belacqua

OK, so for you, the fact that 99 out of 100 people name one restaurant as best does not increase the credibility of the statement "That restaurant is best."

It doesn’t and it shouldn’t. A majority opinion has nothing to do credibility.

Boru

[Angrboda]

@Belacqua

OK, so for you, the fact that 99 out of 100 people name one restaurant as best does not increase the credibility of the statement "That restaurant is best."

It doesn’t and it shouldn’t. A majority opinion has nothing to do credibility.

Boru

Oh c'mon. You pull into a town and there's a bunch of cars parked at one restaurant and basically none at others. Where are you going to eat?

[The Grand Nudger]

The Greasy Spoon Theory of God, lol.

[Mister Agenda]

I know, some would disagree and still insist empirical seen with eyes, evidence for God. While many things are not necessarily must be seen, like love, mind, mathematical numbers, etc. Some would hold “ideology” point of view to judge something. Whether they are atheists, or even theists. But I take a hat off to someone who just open mind and can accept the two type of realities we live in. That we have physical seen thing and also non physical seen thing.


The existence of God was proved by rational evidence. That there must be prime cause, prime mover of all existences that have beginning. Many atheists and theists would agree that there must be fundamental stuff of universe we live in, regarding it still unknown/unseen.

Kalaam
Everything that begins to exist must have a cause: this has not been demonstrated, and it looks like virtual paticles begin to exist without a cause.

The universe began to exist: this has not been demonstrated, we know the whole universe was in a hot dense state and then expanded rapidly, but we don't know where that hot dense state came from, how long it lasted, if it had a beginning, or if it always existed; maybe we have an eternal universe that changes phase state.

Therefore, the universe had a cause: this has not been demonstrated, and there is no particular reason to think that if it did have a cause, that cause was a person with intention.

[soulcalm17]

soulcalm17I know, some would disagree and still insist empirical seen with eyes, evidence for God. While many things are not necessarily must be seen, like love, mind, mathematical numbers, etc. Some would hold “ideology” point of view to judge something. Whether they are atheists, or even theists. But I take a hat off to someone who just open mind and can accept the two type of realities we live in. That we have physical seen thing and also non physical seen thing.


The existence of God was proved by rational evidence. That there must be prime cause, prime mover of all existences that have beginning. Many atheists and theists would agree that there must be fundamental stuff of universe we live in, regarding it still unknown/unseen.

Kalaam
Everything that begins to exist must have a cause: this has not been demonstrated, and it looks like virtual paticles begin to exist without a cause.

The universe began to exist: this has not been demonstrated, we know the whole universe was in a hot dense state and then expanded rapidly, but we don't know where that hot dense state came from, how long it lasted, if it had a beginning, or if it always existed; maybe we have an eternal universe that changes phase state.

Therefore, the universe had a cause: this has not been demonstrated, and there is no particular reason to think that if it did have a cause, that cause was a person with intention.

Changes in form/qualities is a sign of anything that have beginning. For virtual particles: you just don't know yet the cause. For hot dense state of big bang: you just don't know yet where did it came from. Of course it is impossible to see the beginning of universe, while we're stuck in present time. 

Now, these chain of cause, certainly has to be end. And we didn't ask anymore where did it come from, because it is a prime cause/fundamental stuff. That ending of cause, is only logically and rationally have qualities of living and intelligent, thus it has a will and plan. If otherwise, then we belief in magic. I would prefer believe in unseen entity that have those qualities rather than believe in unknown magic that has no rational explanation.

[The Grand Nudger]

For gods, you just don't know yet the cause.