Why do atheist believe something can come from nothing?

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Disagreed, but you, sir, are certainly proving yourself to be a typical forum Atheist who is exactly the polar opposite of a Bible-thumping theist.

Evidence:
1) Typing in all caps to push one's point of view.
2) Trolling, derailing and name-calling when others disagree.
3) Pushing one's beliefs in a highly emotional manner.

Examples:

Irony: Doing the very thing to someone in the same post in which you complain about that which you are complaining about....

LMAO! You did to me, each of your points 1, 2 and 3.

Oh. My.

 

[We Never Know]

A a lot of people have tried to study a variety of
supernatural ideas.

People make all manner of claims as to what
they can do, but they never can do them under a
microscope, so to speak.

If they could, that would be just terrif evidence.

That they cannot is also evidence, if not, you know, proof.

"Evidence" might be in front of us but it if is undetected,
then it is not evidence.

There is no logic that I can see in your last sentence there.


- super natural(if it exists) is above our realm of understanding so we wouldn't know it if we crossed it

Assuming that it would be "above our realm of
understanding" in no way means we'd not know it
if it occurred in front of us.

Levitate for us, summon daemons, turn a
staff into a serpent, and we will certainly feel
we have seen the supernatural.

Scenario...

You are a archeologist. A team of neurosurgeons have you come in to look at tests and MRI results of a person that supposedly has brain damage. You look at the tests and results and you don't see any evidence of brain damage.
Does that mean absence of evidence = evidence of absence?
Of course not. You aren't qualified and don't know what to look for so you can't see the evidence.

 

[Wandering Monk]

IF someone can demonstrate a method to "go between universes"? THEN, the Universe would automatically include all "universe(s)", would it not?

The root of the word "universe" is pretty much everything that there is.

The introduction of "multi-verse" is semantically problematic, as a result.

Which, I suspect, is why the word "membrane" was substituted.

Of course it would. As you said, semantics. If it turns out there are other 'universes' (the 'multiverse') then I suppose it would be semantically correct to call them part of the Natural Universe.

 

[We Never Know]

A a lot of people have tried to study a variety of
supernatural ideas.

People make all manner of claims as to what
they can do, but they never can do them under a
microscope, so to speak.

If they could, that would be just terrif evidence.

That they cannot is also evidence, if not, you know, proof.

"Evidence" might be in front of us but it if is undetected,
then it is not evidence.

There is no logic that I can see in your last sentence there.


- super natural(if it exists) is above our realm of understanding so we wouldn't know it if we crossed it

Assuming that it would be "above our realm of
understanding" in no way means we'd not know it
if it occurred in front of us.

Levitate for us, summon daemons, turn a
staff into a serpent, and we will certainly feel
we have seen the supernatural.

How would you comprehend something if it's above your relam of understanding?

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Of course it would. As you said, semantics. If it turns out there are other 'universes' (the 'multiverse') then I suppose it would be semantically correct to call them part of the Natural Universe.

Exactly. And nothing would be outside the universe... Perhaps we would need to add "greater" in there somewhere...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

How would you comprehend something if it's above your relam of understanding?

One does not need to fully comprehend something to be aware of it's existence.

I can look at a book written in Mandarin, and see that it is real, and exists-- but I would have no easy way to even begin to comprehend what it was saying. I would absolutely require the assistance of someone who did understand Mandarin Chinese.

But. You could still show me the book, and I could easily thumb thorough it's pages, and if there were pictures? Look at those and attempt to make sense of them.

A dog cannot read a book, but a dog can easily be quite aware of the book's existence-- indeed, if you toss the book past the dog's line of sight? There's a very good chance the dog will chase the book, and possibly chew it to pieces.

 

[Audie]

Scenario...

You are a archeologist. A team of neurosurgeons have you come in to look at tests and MRI results of a person that supposedly has brain damage. You look at the tests and results and you don't see any evidence of brain damage.
Does that mean absence of evidence = evidence of absence?
Of course not. You aren't qualified and don't know what to look for so you can't see the evidence.

And I can offer counter-scenarios.

This is as noted to another, a very tiresome "debate".

Whether absence is "evidence", and how strong
the evidence is, is totally dependent on the circumstances.

 

[Audie]

How would you comprehend something if it's above your relam of understanding?

I went to the trouble or responding
in some detail, and this is what I get back?

in the "never" dept, never mind.

 

[We Never Know]

One does not need to fully comprehend something to be aware of it's existence.

I can look at a book written in Mandarin, and see that it is real, and exists-- but I would have no easy way to even begin to comprehend what it was saying. I would absolutely require the assistance of someone who did understand Mandarin Chinese.

But. You could still show me the book, and I could easily thumb thorough it's pages, and if there were pictures? Look at those and attempt to make sense of them.

A dog cannot read a book, but a dog can easily be quite aware of the book's existence-- indeed, if you toss the book past the dog's line of sight? There's a very good chance the dog will chase the book, and possibly chew it to pieces.

Straw man. I didn't make the argument of fully understand or partially understand.

Being above our realm of understanding is "not understanding, period".

 

[We Never Know]

And I can offer counter-scenarios.

This is as noted to another, a very tiresome "debate".

Whether absence is "evidence", and how strong
the evidence is, is totally dependent on the circumstances.

I went to the trouble posting that with
some detail, and this is what I get back?

in the "never" dept, never mind.

 

[We Never Know]

One does not need to fully comprehend something to be aware of it's existence.

I can look at a book written in Mandarin, and see that it is real, and exists-- but I would have no easy way to even begin to comprehend what it was saying. I would absolutely require the assistance of someone who did understand Mandarin Chinese.

But. You could still show me the book, and I could easily thumb thorough it's pages, and if there were pictures? Look at those and attempt to make sense of them.

A dog cannot read a book, but a dog can easily be quite aware of the book's existence-- indeed, if you toss the book past the dog's line of sight? There's a very good chance the dog will chase the book, and possibly chew it to pieces.

You keep using natural and current analogies.
We are talking about the super natural(if it exists). Use a super natural example. Then explain how and why you would know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since you've stated that an absence of evidence is, indeed, evidence of absence, we've reached an impasse on discussion. You are free to translate that however you wish.

Where did she say that? I have noticed that you do tend to strawman the posts of others. This is not a good sign if you want to try to claim to be a rational poster.

By the way, most people get the claim about "absence of evidence" incorrectly. An absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. There are cases where it can be evidence of absence.

 

[Maximilian]

It's not.
Not believing, is not a belief.

And Atheism's claim that God does not nor cannot exist has never, ever been proven.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And Atheism's claim that God does not nor cannot exist has never, ever been proven.

You really need to learn what atheism's "claims" are. Your argument is almost as bad as trying to fight Christianity by saying "Christians believe that nailing somebody to two boards means that they will live forever".

If you understood what most atheists believe you would realize that the burden of proof is upon those that claim a god exists.

 

[Wandering Monk]

And Atheism's claim that God does not nor cannot exist has never, ever been proven.

How do you prove a negative? Prove that Zeus doesn't exist!

 

[Maximilian]

Do you believe in unicorns? Do you disbelieve in unicorns?
If you disbelieve in unicorns, is the burden of proof on you to show that unicorns don't exist, or is it on a person claiming that unicorns do exist?

My disbelief in Santa Claus is, for instance, is driven by positive evidence for his non-existence.

Here's absolute, 100% probative evidence Santa Claus cannot exist in reality.



Now try to apply the same approach to God Almighty and justify Atheism's claim that God does not nor cannot exist.

 

[Wandering Monk]

My disbelief in Santa Claus is, for instance, is driven by positive evidence for his non-existence.

What positive evidence would that be?

 

[Maximilian]

How do you prove a negative? Prove that Zeus doesn't exist!

Are you insinuating that an unrestricted negative can't be proven? On the other hand wouldn't that render your own claim an unrestricted negative?


In turn, if unrestricted negatives cannot be verified, then no one can prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative. But if there is absolutely no way to prove that no one can prove an unrestricted negative, it must be possible to substantiate an unrestricted negative.


Which means that your allegation is self-refuting - if it's true, it's false!


Ex: Evidence Santa Claus cannot exist in reality.


Now try to apply the same approach to God Almighty.

 

[Maximilian]

What positive evidence would that be?

This was already shared via a link here.

 

[Audie]

Where did she say that? I have noticed that you do tend to strawman the posts of others. This is not a good sign if you want to try to claim to be a rational poster.

By the way, most people get the claim about "absence of evidence" incorrectly. An absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. There are cases where it can be evidence of absence.

Simple minded does not mean able to grasp simple things