Lack of Evidence

[We Never Know]

Joe believes a god does exist.
John doesn't believe a god does exist.

Fact is there is lack of evidence for a god existing and lack of evidence for a god not existing because science has no stance either way.

So my question is if both have lack of evidence, isn't what is chosen to accept merely based on personal choice?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Joe believes a god does exist.
John doesn't believe a god does exist.

Fact is there is lack of evidence for a god existing and lack of evidence for a god not existing because science has no stance either way.

So my question is if both have lack of evidence, isn't what is chosen to accept merely based on personal choice?

Based on belief and faith in those we call Prophets, that what they spoke about was and still are from God.
Maybe some people are a bit stuck on the "God" aspect of this.
My understanding of God are different than others understanding of what God truly are.
I can not disprove others understanding or believe. Only focus on how I am understanding and how my belief can be verified to me, through my own life.

Maybe we need to be less concerned about what others believe or have fath in. And focus inward in our own being

Just a thought...

 

[ChristineM]

Joe believes a god does exist.
John doesn't believe a god does exist.

Fact is there is lack of evidence for a god existing and lack of evidence for a god not existing because science has no stance either way.

So my question is if both have lack of evidence, isn't what is chosen to accept merely based on personal choice?

Personal choice and evidence.such as.
Childhood leukemia
The mosquito.
The marmot.
The futility of prayer
No flood evidence counters the bible tale in so many ways i cannot understand why there are still believers in god created a world flood
Genetics.
All serve me as hard evidence that no god exists.

Of course believers have their own ideas

 

[SalixIncendium]

Joe believes a god does exist.
John doesn't believe a god does exist.

Fact is there is lack of evidence for a god existing and lack of evidence for a god not existing because science has no stance either way.

So my question is if both have lack of evidence, isn't what is chosen to accept merely based on personal choice?

You're conflating lack of objective evidence with lack of experiential evidence.

One may have had an experience of God, therefore, one has experiential evidence of God. It's just not objectively evident.

Saying it's a choice is akin to saying I can choose to like or dislike kale.

 

[Sheldon]

Joe believes a god does exist.
John doesn't believe a god does exist.

Fact is there is lack of evidence for a god existing and lack of evidence for a god not existing because science has no stance either way.

So my question is if both have lack of evidence, isn't what is chosen to accept merely based on personal choice?

Well firstly presented this way it is an unfalsifiable concept, and of course theism is not one belief, there are thousands of deities, and even different versions of the same deity, so if it is a choice, then it is more than just two choices. That suggests this might be a false dichotomy.

If you choose to believe something without any evidence, then what's your justification for disbelieving anything else that has no evidence to support it. This would mean either bias in the decision to believe it, or inevitably believing contradictory claims.

How much choice is involved is open to debate of course, but as far as there is a decision to make, I withhold belief from all unfalsifiable claims, but remain agnostic about them.

 

[Sheldon]

Based on belief and faith in those we call Prophets, that what they spoke about was and still are from God.
Maybe some people are a bit stuck on the "God" aspect of this.
My understanding of God are different than others understanding of what God truly are.
I can not disprove others understanding or believe. Only focus on how I am understanding and how my belief can be verified to me, through my own life.

Maybe we need to be less concerned about what others believe or have fath in. And focus inward in our own being

Just a thought...

Well you're making claims for evidence, that's not what the OP is asking.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Well you're making claims for evidence, that's not what the OP is asking.

No claimed made, only my personal understanding of the question asked.

 

[Sheldon]

Well you're making claims for evidence, that's not what the OP is asking.

No claimed made, only my personal understanding of the question asked.

This is a claim....for evidence...

Based on belief and faith in those we call Prophets, that what they spoke about was and still are from God.

The thread OP was asking about belief or disbelief in the complete absence of evidence either way. Which of course would be precisely what we face with all unfalsifiable concepts. Whether you accept your own belief as such a concept is another matter, but that is what the OP is asking.

 

[Spirit of Light]

This is a claim....for evidence...



The thread OP was asking about belief or disbelief in the complete absence of evidence either way. Which of course would be precisely what we face with all unfalsifiable concepts. Whether you accept your own belief as such a concept is another matter, but that is what the OP is asking.

I answer the OP out of my belief in the teaching. That mean I believe it to be true. I have only personal experiences to it, so your question for evidence for can only be answered by my personal experience within my belief.

 

[osgart]

Believers believe based on the interpretation of evidence philosophically.

They prove and test their faith through personal experience.

Since believers congregate in communities of believers they manifest their faith in reality.

If they had gotten nothing out of their beliefs they wouldn't put much time into it.

 

[Nimos]

Joe believes a god does exist.
John doesn't believe a god does exist.

Fact is there is lack of evidence for a god existing and lack of evidence for a god not existing because science has no stance either way.

So my question is if both have lack of evidence, isn't what is chosen to accept merely based on personal choice?

You can't really phrase the question or the situation like that, I think.

That Joe believes a God exist, is most likely because he believes there are good enough evidence for holding such beliefs and therefore wouldn't agree that there are a lack of evidence. John on the other hand, is not convinced by the evidence that Joe is, so its not really because there is a lack of evidence for God not existing, but that those evidence currently presented to him, doesn't seem strong enough or is considered to be evidence at all for there to be existing a God. Science doesn't have the purpose of disproving God, so science is basically irrelevant in this regard. Where science can interfere with the idea of God, is when a religious text claim that Earth was created 6000 years ago or whatever and science shows that to not be true.
But people figuring out or examining these things, didn't do it with the purpose of trying to disprove the religious text or God, but to learn something about the physical world in which we live.

Put in another way, as atheists, we don't go on a "hunt" for evidence for God not existing. That would be like us trying to actively find evidence that unicorns doesn't exist. No one deals or investigate things like that.

You are correct that in the end its a personal "choice", but it is based on the evidence or claims that are put forward and how we interpret these.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Joe believes a god does exist.
John doesn't believe a god does exist.

Fact is there is lack of evidence for a god existing and lack of evidence for a god not existing because science has no stance either way.

So my question is if both have lack of evidence, isn't what is chosen to accept merely based on personal choice?

No. Only Joe has a lack of evidence.

John never proposed anything himself along with the evidence that Joe cannot back up his assumptions.

 

[Brian2]

Joe believes a god does exist.
John doesn't believe a god does exist.

Fact is there is lack of evidence for a god existing and lack of evidence for a god not existing because science has no stance either way.

So my question is if both have lack of evidence, isn't what is chosen to accept merely based on personal choice?

That sounds right.
I imagine that for many atheists however it is not a matter of "chosen to accept" for them and their atheism.
They have not chosen to accept anything, they just lack a belief in a God and it is up to anyone who has chosen to believe in a God to prove their position.
Makes me feel like spewing, but that wouldn't be very nice in a post on the internet, and it might even be against the forum rules.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Joe believes a god does exist.
John doesn't believe a god does exist.

Fact is there is lack of evidence for a god existing and lack of evidence for a god not existing because science has no stance either way.

Science doesn't have a stance either way if you leave it as vague and open-ended as you've left it. In the real world, religious beliefs have specifics.

Real-world religions also have meta-claims, like "making God the centre of your life is reasonable" and "the source of my beliefs about God is reliable" that are false if we have no evidence either way about whether the basic claims of the religion are true.

So my question is if both have lack of evidence, isn't what is chosen to accept merely based on personal choice?

I suppose that a choice to be irrational is a personal choice, sure.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're conflating lack of objective evidence with lack of experiential evidence.

One may have had an experience of God, therefore, one has experiential evidence of God. It's just not objectively evident.

What could "experiential evidence of God" be?

I'm happy to grant the existence of experiences that people often attribute to God, but I think it's begging the question a bit to assume that those experiences necessarily did come from God... especially before we've even established that God even exists.

Saying it's a choice is akin to saying I can choose to like or dislike kale.

God is an aesthetic preference?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Believers believe based on the interpretation of evidence philosophically.

They prove and test their faith through personal experience.

Since believers congregate in communities of believers they manifest their faith in reality.

If they had gotten nothing out of their beliefs they wouldn't put much time into it.

I don't think that anyone is arguing that religions can't have social benefit for their members (or social costs for leaving).

 

[Audie]

Joe believes a god does exist.
John doesn't believe a god does exist.

Fact is there is lack of evidence for a god existing and lack of evidence for a god not existing because science has no stance either way.

So my question is if both have lack of evidence, isn't what is chosen to accept merely based on personal choice?

Choosing to believe is wilfull send deception.

Substitute chupacabra for God.

See if ' no evidence for" and, " no evidence against" are truly equivalent, chupa being
a what, 50 - 50.
Or the teapot out there.

 

[Audie]

You're conflating lack of objective evidence with lack of experiential evidence.

One may have had an experience of God, therefore, one has experiential evidence of God. It's just not objectively evident.

Saying it's a choice is akin to saying I can choose to like or dislike kale.

I talked with a mormon missionary who
told me of his experience with God telling him
the BoM is all true.

 

[SalixIncendium]

What could "experiential evidence of God" be?

We have had several threads here over the years that discuss mystical experiences.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We have had several threads here over the years that discuss mystical experiences.

Yes, those would be the "experiences that people often attribute to God" I mentioned.

None of those threads - at least as far as I saw - ever made a case for why mystical experiences would necessarily be evidence for God.