"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

[bobhikes]

Are you saying that this assertion is equal to a scientific theory or are you using the word theory in the colloquial sense? The possibility of a god does not support the belief that there is one. It is possible that a unicorn created the universe as well, but I reject that assertion as well for the same reason....no evidence.

The main complaint was that personal experience can not be used as evidence. How do you defend the theories of Dark matter and Dark energy then. I can call them Unicorn matter or Unicorn energy. I could call them God Matter or God Energy but because of the flak over the God particle god is removed from science.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yet you gave an example of your own and then denied it.

I just stated what's true. There is nothing but conjecture, which means no real possibilities exist.


So Christopher Hitchens statement is unfalsifiable then?

 

[Deidre]

There is something to be said for the motivational appeal of sharing concepts and hopes with other people.

That is not a justification for theistic belief IMO, but I acknowledge that for many people it has appeal. I just don't understand why so much reliance on belief as opposed to the language and the ideas themselves.

I think that if people are honest with themselves, they'll realize that what they seek is affirmation of their own beliefs, for their own beliefs are simply not enough.

 

[Shadow Link]

The problem is is that the evidence is so clearly obvious not many can see it. People don't put in the work. When you see it, Atheism looks pretty stupid. Unless Atheism is applying itself against a false religion, it's not logical.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Dismissed I have no evidence that you exist. You are as real as a pink polka dotted unicorn. I can only use personal experience to defend your existence. In fact even if we meet in person, I can only know you as a physical object all that you tell me or show me could be lies.

This isn't entirely true. Here are some of the pieces of evidence that prove the existence of @leibowde84 (note, this is FAR FAR more and substantial than any list you could compile as evidence for "God", or pink polka-dotted unicorns):

1. You have the sum total of your own interaction with people/the internet/computers to know what it takes to get posts to appear on a forum.
2. The posts are cogent, and the responses to replies thought out, topical and crafted. Better than (for example) any AI you could possibly find at this time.
3. Others also post and reply to his forum interactions, proving that you aren't the only person who is personally experiencing his presence.
4. There is consistency in his forum posts and others' reactions, implying that they are seeing the same words you are, and that what you read from him isn't just some figment of your imagination.
5. There is actual, physical record of what has gone on within these forums. The posts are stored on a disk somewhere, and if you did an audit of that disk you could read the data stored there, even have others read it, and see if they interpret the interactions posed in the same light that you do.

Granted, all of that still relies solely on your, personal experience and your personal interpretation of the experience of others, but, of course, what DOESN'T? The personal experiences of God for ANYONE are completely different, completely personal things, with no possibility of interpersonal verification that ANYTHING actually happened at all.

 

[columbus]

Logical theory of God
There has never been a time when nothing existed(Supported by several scientific theories). It is probable that this universe came into being at the time of the big bang( Supported by several scientific theories). If things always existed then a thing or things caused an action that created this universe among this or these things a God(has defined as a creator of the universe) is a valid option.

I mostly agree with this. It's both intuitive and rational. It's why I am not really an atheist, but a deist. I believe that the reason that there is something, rather than nothing, is God.
But it doesn't actually tell you anything about God. That's why I am not a theist. It demonstrates that God existed about fourteen billion years ago, not that God exists now. It doesn't tell you if God intended to create the universe, much less why(if He did intend to). The cosmological argument tells us nothing of importance, it has absolutely no explanatory power. It's more like using semantics and limited perceptions to conjure up God.

Maybe God existed 14B years ago, anything could have happened since. Maybe God splintered into a zillion spirits zipping around His new playground. Maybe the Big Bang was God's death throes, and rather than The Divine Creation the universe is more like The Divine Corpse. I don't know and neither does anyone else.

Maybe God didn't intend to create the universe, it's a byproduct or waste product. Imagine that God is a sculptor, in his studio with a block of marble and a plan for an art piece. He goes to work, cutting and chipping and grinding and polishing. When he is done, he admires his handiwork while sweeping out the studio. We self-important humans like to believe that we are the artwork, when the universe might well be the scraps and rubbish Created by the work. Maybe the Big Bang was God's trash disposal system and He's never thought about it since. I don't know and neither does anyone else.

The logical problem with the cosmological argument is that theists use it to support beliefs that just aren't in there. It doesn't demonstrate that God even exists, much less values worship, much less cares about my sex life. It is not any justification for any religious beliefs at all.

Using it as though it's proof of someone's theological beliefs makes them look a little dense, to be quite honest.
Tom

 

[bobhikes]

This isn't entirely true. Here are some of the pieces of evidence that prove the existence of @leibowde84 (note, this is FAR FAR more and substantial than any list you could compile as evidence for "God", or pink polka-dotted unicorns):

1. You have the sum total of your own interaction with people/the internet/computers to know what it takes to get posts to appear on a forum.
2. The posts are cogent, and the responses to replies thought out, topical and crafted. Better than (for example) any AI you could possibly find at this time.
3. Others also post and reply to his forum interactions, proving that you aren't the only person who is personally experiencing his presence.
4. There is consistency in his forum posts and others' reactions, implying that they are seeing the same words you are, and that what you read from him isn't just some figment of your imagination.
5. There is actual, physical record of what has gone on within these forums. The posts are stored on a disk somewhere, and if you did an audit of that disk you could read the data stored there, even have others read it, and see if they interpret the interactions posed in the same light that you do.

Granted, all of that still relies solely on your, personal experience and your personal interpretation of the experience of others, but, of course, what DOESN'T? The personal experiences of God for ANYONE are completely different, completely personal things, with no possibility of interpersonal verification that ANYTHING actually happened at all.

If you objectively look at How all people see and describe god you will find there are more than a few actual agreements. Even considering atheism you can still find a definition of God to satisfy everyone that is objective. If your closed minded you won't see it.

 

[Milton Platt]

The main complaint was that personal experience can not be used as evidence. How do you defend the theories of Dark matter and Dark energy then. I can call them Unicorn matter or Unicorn energy. I could call them God Matter or God Energy but because of the flak over the God particle god is removed from science.

Agreed. I would classify them as hypotheses rather than theories, but I am not a physicist or cosmologist, so perhaps there are mathematical proofs to be had....I don't know.
I see them as labels for things or forces we do not yet understand fully, but can see some evidence that it is a probability.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think that if people are honest with themselves, they'll realize that what they seek is affirmation of their own beliefs, for their own beliefs are simply not enough.

I hadn't thought of that.

How much of a difference do you see between such affirmation and acceptance in a more general sense?

 

[LuisDantas]

The problem is is that the evidence is so clearly obvious not many can see it. People don't put in the work. When you see it, Atheism looks pretty stupid. Unless Atheism is applying itself against a false religion, it's not logical.

Atheism is pretty stupid. Effortless, as a matter of fact.

What may demand some effort is defense against the pressure of theistic proselitism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've often felt, if a person believes in God, then why does he/she care to prove that belief to someone else? Just accept the experience or faith for what it brings to you, personally. If you are a believer, or don't believe...it should all be based on what you believe to be true, not if others agree with you or not. Just my thoughts.

I've thought about that myself. Here's what I've come up with:

Belief in God or acceptance of a religion is often taken by believers as something vital that they build their lives around, not just a mere preference or intellectual assent.

If you're convinced not only that God exists but that faith in God is as vital as oxygen, then the mere existence of people who don't believe in God but are doing just fine is a threat to your belief system.

If you're convinced that God's existence is obvious, but there are intelligent, observant, rational people walking around who see all the "signs of God" that you do but have found no reason to believe, then this is a strong sign that you're probably wrong about how obvious God is.

I think this thought process is behind a lot of the demonization of atheists that I see from devout religious people: claims like "they're just mad at God" or "they know God exists but they want to keep sinning" or "their hearts have been hardened" are easier for them to swallow than the idea that their foundational beliefs are wrong... even though they sound ridiculous and desperate to non-believers.

 

[Nous]

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

I think this is an amazing quote, and it pretty much sums up why atheism (being without a belief in the existence of God or gods is the meaning I'm using here) is not only reasonable, but easily defended.

Many people claim that personal experience qualifies as evidence when it comes to God, but personal experience is often flawed and misleading (hallucinations, dreams, seemingly miraculous events, etc. are unreliable without verification). It is also unverifiable. So, how can something that is unreliable and unverifiable be considered evidence?

Others claim that God is necessary because God provides an explanation for things that are currently unexplained by science. But, obviously, that is a "God of the gaps" argument or an "argument from ignorance". It isn't nearly enough to just say "God is responsible" without providing verifiable evidence that it is true. We used to believe that the sun revolved around the earth. It made perfect sense in regards to how we saw the sun rise and set each day from our perspective. But, that experience and logic turned out to be completely wrong. So, how can what merely makes sense to us be used as evidence?

So, beyond personal experience and what merely makes sense to us individually, is there any evidence for God that does not require an argument from ignorance or other logical fallacies?

If there were a phenomenon (or fact) that we can prove cannot even theoretically be accounted for as the effect of a cause within the universe, there would be no logical obstacle to attributing that phenomenon or fact to God (or any other cause external to the universe). Correct?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

If your(sic) closed minded you won't see it.

Haha... of course not. And since everybody wants to be considered "open-minded" statements like that make your case so much "stronger", right? Excuse me while I go roll my eyes... to death.

 

[ChristineM]

You see a gambler play 5 royal flushes in a row at 5 different tables and leave the casino

looking back at the video there is ZERO EVIDENCE he cheated

and of course with the card dispenser, you have indisputable evidence of a mechanism fully capable of producing this result by pure chance


which do you think more likely?

why?

You use a improbability to defend lack of evidence. How does that work?

 

[Nous]

The cosmological argument tells us nothing of importance, it has absolutely no explanatory power. It's more like using semantics and limited perceptions to conjure up God.

It is true that the cosmological argument (the argument of the necessity of a first cause) does not provide any further information about God. That shouldn't count against what is deduced by the argument. Similarly, I can produce evidence that my great, great, great grandfather existed, but from that evidence I can't deduce anything about what he looked like.

 

[ChristineM]

It is also not an argument from ignorance or logical fallacy. What evidence does science have for the creation of the universe and do you also have problems with their theories or do you have an acceptable theory without material evidence.

Do you support Dark matter or Dark energy as they are theories based off of experience only.

There is considerable evidence from several sources that the universe is expanding, the logical assumption is it was smaller yesterday. Smaller still 13.8 billion years ago and none existent nor long before that.

There is indirect evidence in lensing and gravitational effects that dark matter exists.

Dark energy is different, no evidence exists. It's a "fudge" in science to explain why our universe is expanding progressively more rapidly. It is openly admitted to be an unknown with alternatives such as negative pressure outside the universe being responsible increasing speed.

 

[bobhikes]

There is considerable evidence from several sources that the universe is expanding, the logical assumption is it was smaller yesterday. Smaller still 13.8 billion years ago and none existent nor long before that.

There is indirect evidence in lensing and gravitational effects that dark matter exists.

Dark energy is different, no evidence exists. It's a "fudge" in science to explain why our universe is expanding progressively more rapidly. It is openly admitted to be an unknown with alternatives such as negative pressure outside the universe being responsible increasing speed.

There is a lot of indirect evidence for God to exist as well.

That negative pressure statement just goes along with something else I came up with. In most models I have seen of the space/time gravity relationship. The planets sit on the plane of gravity and distort the plane. It occurs to me the planets exist inside space/time and should distort it above and below. It is more like putting the planets in an non-inflated balloon. Gravity would be the pressure the sides of the balloon exert to get back to flat.

 

[ChristineM]

There is a lot of indirect evidence for God to exist as well.

That negative pressure statement just goes along with something else I came up with. In most models I have seen of the space/time gravity relationship. The planets sit on the plane of gravity and distort the plane. It occurs to me the planets exist inside space/time and should distort it above and below. It is more like putting the planets in an non-inflated balloon. Gravity would be the pressure the sides of the balloon exert to get back to flat.

No there isn't. Evidence can be falsified, no claims of god could stand scientific review, hence the reason science does not waste it's time.

Space time is like that, the rubber sheet example shows the effect on flat plain. In actuality the effect is in 4 dimensions
its whats outside our universe pulling that could explain universal inflation. Put your balloon in a rigid containing sphere and induce a vacuum in the sphere. See what happens to the balloon.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I could call them God Matter or God Energy but because of the flak over the God particle god is removed from science.

Psst: the reason the Higgs boson was called "the God particle" is because it was so frustratingly elusive that it got nicknamed "the goddamned particle", but this got censored for public consumption.

 

[PureX]

"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." - Christopher Hitchens

This is a very clever arrangement of words, but they ignore the actual problem. And that is that people have different criteria for what they accept as evidence. And for how much evidence they require as "proof". So so all this clever statement does is give those who don't want there to be any evidence, or don't want to produce any, an excuse to offer and accept neither.

A classic case in point: the atheist that claims there is no "objective physical evidence" of the existence of God, when no one has ever suggested that God is an objective physical phenomena. And yet armed with this nonsensical and logically impossible-to-obtain lack of evidence, he then offers it as his unassailable reasoning for his belief that no gods exist.