atheism = unscientific (reject, beliefs, followers, theist, agnostic)

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by Archaeopteryx

Because in 600 BCE there was no evidence for the existence of Pluto, it would have been logically consistent to draw the conclusion then that Pluto did not exist, due explicitly to the lack of evidence for its existence.

This makes no sense. With no evidence at all for the planet Pluto, the people of 600 BC should not even be conceiving of a Pluto, so no conclusion at all should be drawable one way or the other about the existence of Pluto. Logically.

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

What i meant by the the statement you quoted is that, like in 600 BCE when they could see the stars but didn't know what they were, we see evidence for God but cannot see it for what it is.

But when we have the ability to examine the evidence and find out what it means...?

We have the ability to measure the stars to see what they are, hence our knowledge about what stars really are.

Does this apply to other information about God? You say it does.

So what is this information about God that we cannot see it for what it is? How have we interpreted it? And how do you know we have interpreted it incorrectly?

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by Archaeopteryx

Because in 600 BCE there was no evidence for the existence of Pluto, it would have been logically consistent to draw the conclusion then that Pluto did not exist, due explicitly to the lack of evidence for its existence. Because there is evidence now that Pluto exists, it is logically consistent to draw the conclusion that Pluto does exist, and given the revealed properties of the planet and its orbit, it can also be rationally drawn that the planet existed in 600 BCE.

Because of the current lack of evidence abound for the existence of a god, the presently most logical conclusion to draw would be that no god exists, and therefore the presently most logical position regarding the existence of a god is within the absence of belief.

You are not making your point clear.

Like willamena said, the people in 600 BCE had no concept of Pluto, they were Pluto agnostics. Just as in the modern case with God, the logical position is agnosticism. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - if you cannot see that from the Pluto example then i don't know how else to explain it.
We have yet to find conclusive evidence for God, mainly because we are looking in the wrong places with our eyes closed, it doesn't mean that in 600 years time we will not have evidence. So you can't draw the conclusion that no God exists, you can only draw the conclusion that there is no evidence for God's existance.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

But when we have the ability to examine the evidence and find out what it means...?

We have the ability to measure the stars to see what they are, hence our knowledge about what stars really are.

Does this apply to other information about God? You say it does.

So what is this information about God that we cannot see it for what it is? How have we interpreted it? And how do you know we have interpreted it incorrectly?

Sorry, the blind cannot lead the blind. I do not know God, so i can't tell you how to know God.

I believe God exists because it is intuitive, faith. Once i have gnosis of God i will be sure to share it with you.

[Tiberius]

Ah, so you are saying that we have information of God, yet we are misinterpreting it? How can you say this when you can't tell us what the information is, nor can you tell us how we have misinterpreted it? Aren't you just assuming that this misinterpreted information exists in order to support your position?

Like willamena said, the people in 600 BCE had no concept of Pluto, they were Pluto agnostics. Just as in the modern case with God, the logical position is agnosticism. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - if you cannot see that from the Pluto example then i don't know how else to explain it.

What if they had something which told them exactly how to find pluto? Instructions on building telescopes etc. And then when they looked where Pluto was meant to be they found absolutely nothing? If they then turned around and said, "Well, we built the telescope that you said would let us see pluto, we looked exactly where you said Pluto would be, but still found nothing," wouldn't they be justified? of course.

If I told you how to find a unicorn - "Go to the other side of that grove of trees and look through the center of a stone that's shaped like a donut and you'll see a family of unicorns frolicking about" - and you followed my instructions and still found nothing, wouldn't you conclude I was full of it? of course you would.

So why have different standards for the Bible? The Bible does give us ways to find God, it is very clear. It says that a person with even a tiny amount of faith can pray for something in jesus' name, and that pray will be granted. People with even the tiniest amount of faith can pray to move a mountain and it will be done. This tells us a very easy way to get concrete information about God. And yet, many very religious people pray in Jesus' name and their prayers are unanswered. This is an example of the Bible telling us exactly a way to find very strong evidence for the existence of God - and yet it leads us nowhere. When we look for this evidence, we get the same reults as going behind the hill and looking through a stone to find unicorns. No results at all!

So, we have two situations where we know exactly where to look for evidence, and in both cases we find nothing. Unless we are to have a double standard (which would show a very unintellectual approach to the dilemma), we must accept the same logic for both situations.

And if this is the case, we must accept the possibility that there is a family of unicorns frolicking behind the hill that we can't see even though... or we must accept that the fact that the Bible tells us exactly what we must do to find evidence of God, and that when we do this we get no evidence at all - that this is evidence that the Bible is just made up, just as the story about the unicorns is.

So we are left with quite a choice.

Do we accept any ridiculous claim as possible, not matter how stupid... or do we accept an absence of evidence as evidence of absence?

And what do you choose? Do you accept the unicorn story as possible? Or do you accept that the failure of the Bible to provide concrete evidence of God as evidence that the whole thing is made up?

[stemann]

Originally Posted by Archaeopteryx

No, this is not the conclusion that was drawn.

Because in 600 BCE there was no evidence for the existence of Pluto, it would have been logically consistent to draw the conclusion then that Pluto did not exist, due explicitly to the lack of evidence for its existence. Because there is evidence now that Pluto exists, it is logically consistent to draw the conclusion that Pluto does exist, and given the revealed properties of the planet and its orbit, it can also be rationally drawn that the planet existed in 600 BCE.

Because of the current lack of evidence abound for the existence of a god, the presently most logical conclusion to draw would be that no god exists, and therefore the presently most logical position regarding the existence of a god is within the absence of belief.

No, they just didn't draw any conclusion at all. There is a difference between "drawing the conclusion the Pluto does not exist" and "Not drawing any conclusion because of not being aware that there is any conclusion to draw."

Originally Posted by NetDoc

It's under your nose. It's above you and around you, in fact: it's everywhere you look. You simply have drawn the wrong conclusions my friend, but the evidence is ample as well as obvious.

....so, to reiterate the original question that this was a response to, can you present this evidence? As opposed to merely saying that it is "under your nose, above you and around you" in some faux-mystical condescending way.

Originally Posted by Willamena

This makes no sense. With no evidence at all for the planet Pluto, the people of 600 BC should not even be conceiving of a Pluto, so no conclusion at all should be drawable one way or the other about the existence of Pluto. Logically.

Exactamundo.

Originally Posted by Halcyon

Like willamena said, the people in 600 BCE had no concept of Pluto, they were Pluto agnostics. Just as in the modern case with God, the logical position is agnosticism. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence - if you cannot see that from the Pluto example then i don't know how else to explain it.
We have yet to find conclusive evidence for God, mainly because we are looking in the wrong places with our eyes closed, it doesn't mean that in 600 years time we will not have evidence. So you can't draw the conclusion that no God exists, you can only draw the conclusion that there is no evidence for God's existance.

Yep, and the difference is people still choose to act as if God does exist whereas the only possible position is agnosticism.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

So why have different standards for the Bible? The Bible does give us ways to find God, it is very clear. It says that a person with even a tiny amount of faith can pray for something in jesus' name, and that pray will be granted. People with even the tiniest amount of faith can pray to move a mountain and it will be done. This tells us a very easy way to get concrete information about God. And yet, many very religious people pray in Jesus' name and their prayers are unanswered. This is an example of the Bible telling us exactly a way to find very strong evidence for the existence of God - and yet it leads us nowhere. When we look for this evidence, we get the same reults as going behind the hill and looking through a stone to find unicorns. No results at all!

I promise you that although this argument seems to have a point, none of the people you are arguing with will take it seriously (especially NetDoc); if only because you said the word "unicorns" which is generally regarded to be satirising religion/theism.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

And what do you choose? Do you accept the unicorn story as possible? Or do you accept that the failure of the Bible to provide concrete evidence of God as evidence that the whole thing is made up?

Why the Bible? Why not the Koran, or the Guru Granth Sahib, or the [I don't pretend to know many religious texts....] but you get the idea. How do you know the instructions that God Himself has provided for "us" to find Him?

[Shtef]

Originally Posted by gnostic

If you don't see, hear or feel God in your every daily life, then that is, in itself, proof that there are no God or gods.

no, I disagree with you. If what you say is true then what happens when somebody like me, for instance, comes along and says that I do, In fact, see, hear and feel God everyday of my life? By your own definition I have proven the existence of God. But this is not right, I have proven nothing and neither would the person you have described.

[Shtef]

Originally Posted by Kungfuzed

What if someone started out on the other side of the tracks, being very religious, and spent years searching for God. And after doing everything religion taught him for years and was still unable to establish any kind of contact or evidence for His existance. Then decided to research in the other direction and came to the conclusion that there is no God, would that still be considered unscientific?

No, I don't think the process you have described is overly scientific.The only conclusion this person could draw (whether or not it is a scientific conclusion is another matter) is that the religion they were so passionate about was not the right path. It doesn't prove that there is no God

[Tiberius]

Originally Posted by Shtef

no, I disagree with you. If what you say is true then what happens when somebody like me, for instance, comes along and says that I do, In fact, see, hear and feel God everyday of my life? By your own definition I have proven the existence of God. But this is not right, I have proven nothing and neither would the person you have described.

Provided that what you have interpreted as proof of God is actually proof.

People have had experiences that they have interpreted as waking up in the middle of the night surrounded by dark figures, being unable to move and experiencing extreme fear. They interpret it as being analysed by aliens, or something similar.

However, there is an explanation that is perfectly plausible, a condition where the body is only partially awake. This combined with the fact that the body is paralysed during sleep (a failure of this is what causes sleepwalking), explains what these people experience.

Shtef, your argument is completely dependant on what you experience as God actually being God. However, there is no way for you to prove this. Thus, your calims do not prove god, the merely prove that you experience something that you interpret as God.

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by Tiberius

Ah, so you are saying that we have information of God, yet we are misinterpreting it? How can you say this when you can't tell us what the information is, nor can you tell us how we have misinterpreted it? Aren't you just assuming that this misinterpreted information exists in order to support your position?

That's not what i'm saying, all i am doing is suggesting that in the future we may invent a new technology/discover a new energy/utilise more of our brain which allows us to observe evidence of God that before we could not see for what it was.

Anyway i think most serious theists and scholars of theism realise/understand that God shows himself internally, in the spirit of the believer, not externally.

Originally Posted by Tiberius

So why have different standards for the Bible?

I don't.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Halcyon

That's not what i'm saying, all i am doing is suggesting that in the future we may invent a new technology/discover a new energy/utilise more of our brain which allows us to observe evidence of God that before we could not see for what it was.

We may, but the entire history of science has been one of increasingly impoverishing the God-of-the-Gaps.