Evidence for a god existing or not existing

[Subduction Zone]

This is the line of thought I had as an atheist also. I’ve moved on from there, thank God.

I have sincere doubts that you ever were an atheist since you have failed to justify your current beliefs. Or if you were an atheist you may have been one for poor reasons.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So if we don't know then it doesn't exist or didn't happen? That's interesting.

No.

Rather: if there is no evidence then the existence isn't assumed.
Which, for all practical reasons and purposes, comes down to assuming non-existence.

As an analogy, consider the invisible rocks that block your way on the highway.
You likely don't believe they are there and that you'll crash into them. The reason you don't assume the existence of these rocks, is the total lack of evidence to support such an idea.

So you don't assume their existance.
Meaning that for practical reasons and purposes, you assume no such rocks are there.
That's why you don't slam your breaks or change lanes and instead, just continue driving.

Does that mean that you can prove (at the time you make the decision to drive on, or rather: that you don't decide to slam your breaks) the rocks aren't there / don't exist?

Nope.

It just means that the lack of evidence FOR the claim, is enough for you to continue on assuming the claim isn't true. And thus far more likely false. So likely in fact, that you happily speed towards said spot at 100 miles an hour without even being worried - not even a little bit. In fact, if you have a reaction, it's probably laughter at the expense of the one who claimed the presence of said rocks.

How is an invisible god different from the invisible rocks?

Or does it simply mean we aren't aware of it yet? If we aren't aware of something does that mean it isn't possible?

Is it possible for the invisible rocks to block your way?
Do you even care? Does that question keep you awake at night? Does it make you switch lanes or slam your breaks?

No? Then why would pretty much the same question concerning an invisible god be any different?

The day someone brings some rational evidence to support the invisible rocks / god, is the day I'll care about that question.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry but I have to repeat what I said to my friend 'ratiocinator' a few minutes ago:

I expect that a robot has to just run as it is programmed to do. A robot is not supposed, at all, wasting its time searching its maker.

Similarly, as long a human is content following just his instincts (programmed in his living flesh) to play the role(s) for which he is brought into life, it would be a real waste of time and efforts for him thinking about anything else.

Cheers,
Kerim

Wait a second. Now it seems that you are admitting to be being a robot.

Let's try to break this down rationally. You say that a robot is not supposed to be wasting time searching for its maker. You refuse to look into your apparently false beliefs. There that implies that you are a robot following your programming. You might want to rethink your argument.

We clearly are not robots since we doubt the claim of a maker and are looking for a rational answer.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Much of science started with "ideas", which led to hypotheses, which led to evidence,
which led to theories, which led to much of the knowledge we now have.

And additional evidence of increasing volume and quality is required for every step of the way.

Religions aren't even in the idea phase. They are still in the fantasy phase. The realm where you can't tell truth from fiction because there is zero evidence to distinguish truth from fiction.

 

[McBell]

We clearly are not robots since we doubt the claim of a maker and are looking for a rational answer.

Unless you are a robot programmed to doubt the claim of a maker and look for a rational answer.....

 

[KerimF]

From this, I conclude that god does not exist.
Because the evidence you shared is exactly the kind and amount of evidence I would expect for the non-existence of an entity.

Here, just compare it with the evidence for:
- extra-dimensional aliens: ...
- pink unicorns: ...
- centaurs: ...
- poseidon: ...
- elves: ...


Curious how much it all looks alike, doesn't it?

Please tell me, as a friend , what is, based on your logical reasoning, the difference between a robot that follows the various instructions that are embedded in its structure and a human being who follows his instincts that are embedded in his body.

Thank you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please tell me, as a friend , what is, based on your logical reasoning, the difference between a robot that follows the various instructions that are embedded in its structures and a human being who follows his instincts that are embedded in his body.

Thank you.

Why the false dichotomy? It does not prove anything.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No evidence for either. Everyone with an opened mind knows that.

Claims of non-existence can't have evidence by definition. People who understand the concept of evidence know that. It's why the burden of proof is on the positive claim.

If X doesn't exist, then you won't find evidence of X.
So not having evidence of X, is in fact consistent with the non-existence of X.

 

[McBell]

Please tell me, as a friend , what is, based on your logical reasoning, the difference between a robot that follows the various instructions that are embedded in its structure and a human being who follows his instincts that are embedded in his body.

Thank you.

not another one...

**facepalm**

 

[Subduction Zone]

Claims of non-existence can't have evidence by definition. People who understand the concept of evidence know that. It's why the burden of proof is on the positive claim.

If X doesn't exist, then you won't find evidence of X.
So not having evidence of X, is in fact consistent with the non-existence of X.

And the proper null hypothesis position is a lack of belief in any claim until after sufficient evidence has been presented for that claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

not another one...

**facepalm**

Perhaps this is a bot replying on the thread

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Please tell me, as a friend , what is, based on your logical reasoning, the difference between a robot that follows the various instructions that are embedded in its structure and a human being who follows his instincts that are embedded in his body.

Thank you.

This smells like a rabbit hole which will only derail from the topic.
First you tell me why you think the question is relevant as a reply to the post that you quoted.

 

[KerimF]

Why the false dichotomy? It does not prove anything.

I am so sorry that my innocent question scared you, just kidding
Let us hear together what our friend 'TagliatelliMonster' will say.

 

[McBell]

Perhaps this is a bot replying on the thread

I just really wish they could come up with something new.
If for no other reason than the sake of variety...

 

[Trailblazer]

And, instead of wasting my time to please others by giving them the answers they like, I wasted my time to discover the purpose of my life before it is too late.

I do not think you wasted your time by discovering the purpose of your life before it was too late.
Baha'u'llah said:

40: O MY SERVANT! Free thyself from the fetters of this world, and loose thy soul from the prison of self. Seize thy chance, for it will come to thee no more. The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 36

Jesus said something similar:

Matthew 16:24-26 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

 

[Trailblazer]

I just really wish they could come up with something new.
If for no other reason than the sake of variety...

You have a Christian, a Muslim, and two Baha'is on this thread....What more could you ask for in the way of variety?
Do you think that you atheists are all that varied? I have to say I have not heard any new arguments that I have not heard before.

 

[KerimF]

This smells like a rabbit hole which will only derail from the topic.
First you tell me why you think the question is relevant as a reply to the post that you quoted.

Okay, I can't deny that I am new here, therefore, I have to be very careful not to say something that displeases the gods around me.
Yes, some friends here with whom I had the chance to talk give me, gradually, the impression that I am facing real supernatural powerful gods incarnated as members in RF.

You know... How could I deny now the existence of powerful gods while I am allowed to talk with some of them in person... thru the internet space?!

So I think, in order for me to be on the safe side, I should play from now on the ignorant, if not the idiot.

 

[Trailblazer]

not another one...

**facepalm**

I liked that one, did you get it?

 

[ratiocinator]

But, on the other hand, I am glad that I failed because I am not a robot. And, instead of wasting my time to please others by giving them the answers they like, I wasted my time to discover the purpose of my life before it is too late.

Looks a lot more to me like you wasted your time constructing a nice little fantasy world for yourself. Either you have some objective reason to base your conclusion or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am so sorry that my innocent question scared you, just kidding
Let us hear together what our friend 'TagliatelliMonster' will say.

LOL! Oh my, a poorly asked question scared me