100% lack of evidence to God

[KWED]

Agreed. Some specified deities can be ruled out. Deities that are described in mutually exclusive terms - the married bachelors of theology - can be dismissed out of hand.

But other deities like the deist god, who is said to have done nothing but create our universe and then walk away from it like a turtle laying an egg on the beach and then returning to the sea, who left no revelation containing an internally inconsistent description of itself, about whom nothing is known, and who doesn't promise to answer prayer or do anything else detectable - such noninterventionalist and undescribed deities can never be ruled out.

Nor need it be. For me, it doesn't matter at all whether our universe comes from such a deity or from an unconscious source like a multiverse, since neither predicts anything different from the other for the present or the future.



That depends what you mean by "God." As KWED indicated, deities in the generic sense cannot be ruled out, which is the position of the agnostic atheist. But if by "God" you are referring to the deity of the Christian Bible, it has already been ruled out logically AND empirically.

I mentioned married bachelors as an example of an incoherent concept, one that contradicts itself by being said to have mutually exclusive qualities at the same time. Is that god described as perfect - perfectly knowledgeable, all powerful, and perfectly moral? Did it create a defective race of human beings, regret its error, and try to correct it only to make another error in the process by using the same breeding stock to repopulate the earth? That god doesn't exist. That's the rebuttal from pure reason.

But we have an empirical disproof of that deity as well: the evidence supporting the theory of evolution. That evidence doesn't prove the theory and never can or will, although it does make it correct beyond a reasonable doubt. But that's not the point. Even were the theory upended by a falsifying find, which would necessitate bringing back an intelligent designer to account for the superhuman effort in such a deception, it doesn't revive a God that doesn't lie to us, that loves us, that wants us to know, believe, obey, and worship Him. The incredibly robust evidence for evolution doesn't go away. It just needs to be reinterpreted in the light of the falsifying find, which points to a great deception, or a staged scene as detectives might call it, as when an assassin rifles through a home to make the crime scene look like a botched home invasion - a deception.

Incidentally, even if that falsification does occur, it won't mean that a deity exists - that the intelligent designer was supernatural. In fact, any naturalistic explanation, such as a race of superhuman extraterrestrials whose ancestors evolved from a living population of cells that evolved naturalistically from simple organic compounds, is much more parsimonious than one that requires a deity.

I consider myself as a gnostic atheist and an agnostic adeist.

 

[KWED]

I find the ultimate question to be 'why is there something rather than nothing'? This is, in essence, the same question as 'what puts fire into the equations'?

And, ultimately, I don't think that is a question that *can* be answered.

I consider "why is there something rather than nothing?" to be meaningless. "How is there something rather than nothing?" is one of the most important questions out there.

 

[KWED]

There is a lot of things that we can't answer.
I don't think that is because they do not have an answer .. but because we are limited in our perception .. by design.

So we can't answer them.

I see that we are born and we die .. but the cosmos is a different thing entirely.

Not necessarily.
If the cosmos started to exist, and one day will no longer exist, then it is essentially the same.

History remains history, and exists for always.

No it doesn't. History changes, depending on who writes it.
The past doesn't change, but our records of it certainly do.

 

[KWED]

Why do you believe most people are generally rational but in the god arena are absurd and irrational?

Mostly down to childhood indoctrination, leading to confirmation bias and other types of cognitive dissonance.

 

[RestlessSoul]

.

 

[PureX]

Belief is not a choice.

Only when we are foolish enough to presume that "the evidence" (and our interpretation of it) can't be wrong. So long as we understand that no matter how right we 'believe' we are, that we can still always be quite wrong, we retain the ability to change our conclusions. The idea that "convincing evidence" cannot by overcome by will, is simply untrue, unless we are foolish enough to believe it's true. Then, I suppose, we could trap ourselves in a prison of our own denial.

No one can choose by their own will to believe something they are not convinced is true.

The mistake would be in allowing ourselves to be absolutely convinced. Because at that point we forfeit the ability to doubt ourselves. A position that would be quite dishonest and irrational for us to adopt.

We believe something to be true because we are convinced by some evidence it is true.

How "convinced"? ... Beyond the ability to doubt, or change your mind? Why adopt such an irrational and dishonest stance? The evidence could be incomplete and misleading. Your interpretation of it could be flawed, or biased. So why insist that you must presume your conclusions to be infallible?

I believed God existed for a long time because the evidence convinced me. I became unconvinced once I started studying epistemology and why the reasons I believed were flawed.

Maybe it was just the idea of God that you chose to hold onto that was flawed. Maybe that idea wasn't corresponding to the reality of God in your life? If I conceived of God as "wetness" I would experience the reality of my God every time it rained. If I conceived of God as love, as some people do, I would experience the reality of God in my life in many different ways and circumstances. If I conceived of God as the ultimate mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is, I would literally be 'living in God", and God would be living in me, perpetually. God couldn't get any more real and actual than that.

My point here is that we are deciding what's real and what isn't by how we choose to define the 'what', and how we choose to define the 'real'. And we (you) can choose to redefine those things anytime and any way you want to.

Can you choose to believe the earth is square shaped?

The question is not "can I", the question is why would I want to?

I posted: "It's interesting that we spend so much time debating something that nine of us can verify beyond our own personal results.

You posed: What does this mean?

It was a typo ... "nine" was supposed to be "none".

 

[Muffled]

There's no test as far as I know, I simply examine the evidence to see if I find it factual or convincing.

I believe that makes your view subjective since it is your concept of what is evidence.

 

[Muffled]

I have noted a few atheists make the claim that God does not exist because there is a 100% lack of evidence. Its a very famous atheistic apologetic shared by many.

I understand that lack of evidence can prove the non-existence of something. Like a PCR test for COVID 19. Its just an example.

Now for a COVID 19 test, there is a test called PCR. It is an very well defined test that is based on elimination. You eliminate the probability of having the virus infection. So that's a lack of evidence it exists in you. But this has been developed because people know the virus, it has been identified and tested by scientists, and they have developed a specific test that would eliminate it.

So I would like to ask the atheists who use this argument about theism and God. What is the test you have developed to do this elimination?

I know of only one test: Receive Jesus as Lord and Savior and see if that changes anything. Of course if the reception is not genuine then I believe nothing will change.

 

[stvdv]

5) Some conversations that involve blocked person become *very* difficult to follow.

Thank you. I'm glad you only needed to add one.

This "very" difficult is easy compared to "using RF search function" or to see the listing "Postings" on my page stvdv

Other than that RF works like a charm

 

[Ella S.]

In this very thread, there are atheists who claim what I explained. If you didnt understand what I said, its alright. I will explain because you are polite.

There are some atheists who claim there is no God because there is no evidence for God. Its the position that, lack of evidence is evidence for absence. Many atheists do that. Its a fallacious position. That is why, in order to make that kind of hard claim one has to develop an empirical testing methodology that eliminates God as a tested and proven fact in nature or a testable hypothesis or what ever their intellectual faculties allow.

If they do not have that, its an absolutely fallacious argument.

Thats the whole point.

I'm not sure I understand why this is a fallacious argument.

In inductive reasoning, there is a heuristic called Occam's Razor which states that whatever position makes less assumptions is more likely to be correct. Under Occam's Razor, absence of evidence is often evidence of absence.

In science, hypotheses must be falsifiable. All we can do is check to see whether the data supports a hypothesis or not. In order to falsify a hypothesis, our experiment must show a lack of evidence in support of it. Here, absence of evidence is often evidence of absence, too.

It seems to me that good reasoning often relies on this.

ETA: Also, in epistemic logic, any world where one would expect to observe things that one does not is seen as a possible world but one that we can know we aren't in. For instance, since I have not heard a gunshot within the building in the past hour, I know that nobody has fired an unsilenced modern gun inside of this building because I would have heard it if they did.

This is considered proper reasoning under epistemic logic. So it seems to me that absence of evidence often is evidence for absence. It isn't always evidence for absence, granted, but it can be.

 

[Muffled]

Who are these atheists?



Is it? Then why have I never seen anyone make such a statement? And considering that as good as everybody in my social circle is atheist, that would be kind of strange if such is "very famous" and "share by many", right?



Nope.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
A negative PCR test means it is "unlikely" you have covid. It doesn't "prove" you don't have covid.
Also, a negative PCR test is not LACK of evidence.

A LACK of evidence would be having NO test (and no symptoms).



Euh.... no.
The test attempts to detect virus particles.
The test is "negative" when it fails to find said particles in the sample provided.
This does not eliminate the "probability" of having the virus.
It just means that the test didn't detect it in the sample provided.

At best, it makes it "unlikely" that one has covid - assuming everything in the test went well (that the sample was representative, that the test was carried out well, etc etc etc - and even then you can have false negatives or false positives according to error margins)




No. They developed a test that can detect covid virus particles in a sample.
Not finding virus particles in the sample is not a "lack of evidence".
A lack of evidence would be having no test available at all.



There is no test. That's why there is a lack of evidence.

A negative PCR test is evidence against the proposition that you have covid. It doesn't "prove" you don't have covid.

If there would be a god-test, then a negative result would be evidence against the proposition that said god exists. It wouldn't "prove" that said god does not exist.


EDIT:
Also, this example of a PCR test shows quite nicely imo how theists confuse positive and negative claims.
The PCR test does not test if you do NOT have covid!
The test tests the proposition "you have covid".
It does not test "you do NOT have covid".

It is a test to detect if covid is present.
It is not a test to detect if covid is NOT present.


So, it tests the proposition "you have covid"
There is NO test that tests the proposition "you do NOT have covid".


The same would be true for gods.
A god-test would test the existence of a god. It would not test the non-existence thereof.

The proposition is "god exists" - and that is what would be tested.
A negative result would be evidence against that proposition.

It would not be evidence for (or against) the proposition "god does not exist" - because the test wouldn't be testing that.


So to conclude: a negative PCR test would mean that there is no reason to accept the claim that you have covid. You could still have covid. The test merely fails to provide you with a reason to believe said claim.

And isn't that exactly what atheism is about..........
The lack of evidence FOR the proposition of theism means that there is no reason to accept that proposition. A god could still exist. There's just no evidence to believe that to be the case.

That's it.

I have a post on General Debates title "I am the best evidence of God."

 

[stvdv]

I know of only one test: Receive Jesus as Lord and Savior and see if that changes anything. Of course if the reception is not genuine then I believe nothing will change.

I love that answer. It is as simple as that for me

Since I received My Master as LORD and Savior my life is full of "magic" (experiences beyond physical experiences)

 

[viole]

I know of only one test: Receive Jesus as Lord and Savior and see if that changes anything. Of course if the reception is not genuine then I believe nothing will change.

If it is not genuine, then nothing happens. What about the contrary?
If nothing happens, can we infer it was not genuine?

ciao

- viole

 

[Ella S.]

I know of only one test: Receive Jesus as Lord and Savior and see if that changes anything. Of course if the reception is not genuine then I believe nothing will change.

How can you genuinely receive Jesus as Lord and Savior when you don't think that he is either?

 

[firedragon]

In inductive reasoning, there is a heuristic called Occam's Razor which states that whatever position makes less assumptions is more likely to be correct. Under Occam's Razor, absence of evidence is often evidence of absence.

If that is the case, and you wish to make a philosophical argument, philosophy has many arguments for God. So on what basis can you say lack of evidence? Do you think this philosophical arguments are empirical enough to enter the arena of this thread? If you read the OP, you would note that its speaking of those who are naturalist, physicalist, and metaphysical philosophical arguments are irrelevant to that arena. Only science will work. And using occams razor, to dismiss God so easily in the simplest manner would be the fundamental bias. One would think its simple to be exactly opposed with his own bias. You cannot apply occkhams razor like that. Absence of evidence does not mean you can make such big leap as to decide "no evidence, no God" which would mean you had a specific test that you had developed to test if God exists. Without that you can never apply necessities or simplicities that can be multiplied. Also, many philosophers argue that Ockhams razor has inclusive and exclusive senses and given its inclusive meaning, its exclusive use can be explained entirely on pragmatic grounds. You applied it wrong.

In science, hypotheses must be falsifiable. All we can do is check to see whether the data supports a hypothesis or not. In order to falsify a hypothesis, our experiment must show a lack of evidence in support of it. Here, absence of evidence is often evidence of absence, too.

Very good. But whats also "in science" is the fact that it is a naturalistic arena methodologically. Thus, metaphysical God can never enter that arena. So its an absurd argument.

 

[viole]

If that is the case, and you wish to make a philosophical argument, philosophy has many arguments for God. So on what basis can you say lack of evidence? Do you think this philosophical arguments are empirical enough to enter the arena of this thread?

Why do you need them? Is evidence of Allah, in the form of magic stones falling in the desert, or flying horses providing shuttle service to prophets to heaven, or other miracles of your brand of faith, not enough?

if not, why are you a Muslim?
If yes, why do you need philosophy?

ciao

- viole

 

[Ella S.]

If that is the case, and you wish to make a philosophical argument, philosophy has many arguments for God. So on what basis can you say lack of evidence? Do you think this philosophical arguments are empirical enough to enter the arena of this thread? If you read the OP, you would note that its speaking of those who are naturalist, physicalist, and metaphysical philosophical arguments are irrelevant to that arena. Only science will work. And using occams razor, to dismiss God so easily in the simplest manner would be the fundamental bias. One would think its simple to be exactly opposed with his own bias. You cannot apply occkhams razor like that. Absence of evidence does not mean you can make such big leap as to decide "no evidence, no God" which would mean you had a specific test that you had developed to test if God exists. Without that you can never apply necessities or simplicities that can be multiplied. Also, many philosophers argue that Ockhams razor has inclusive and exclusive senses and given its inclusive meaning, its exclusive use can be explained entirely on pragmatic grounds. You applied it wrong.

What philosophical arguments for God rely on empirical evidence?

Very good. But whats also "in science" is the fact that it is a naturalistic arena methodologically. Thus, metaphysical God can never enter that arena. So its an absurd argument.

I don't think this is accurate. The "methodological naturalism" in science does not automatically discount the existence of the supernatural. Instead, if a supernatural or transcendent phenomenon were to exist that interacts with the natural universe it would be considered a subset of natural phenomenon.

Methodological naturalism, in practice, just means that we focus on what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify. It does not assume the non-existence of a God.

 

[firedragon]

What philosophical arguments for God rely on empirical evidence?

Who said that?

Methodological naturalism, in practice, just means that we focus on what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify.

So how would you test if God exists? Whats your scientific method of testing if God exists?

 

[Ella S.]

And using occams razor, to dismiss God so easily in the simplest manner would be the fundamental bias. One would think its simple to be exactly opposed with his own bias. You cannot apply occkhams razor like that. Absence of evidence does not mean you can make such big leap as to decide "no evidence, no God" which would mean you had a specific test that you had developed to test if God exists. Without that you can never apply necessities or simplicities that can be multiplied. Also, many philosophers argue that Ockhams razor has inclusive and exclusive senses and given its inclusive meaning, its exclusive use can be explained entirely on pragmatic grounds. You applied it wrong.

I have never heard of an "inclusive" and "exclusive" use of Occam's Razor. The point of Occam's Razor is that every additional assumption you make detracts from the likelihood that you are correct which is just a fundamental part of inductive reasoning. It applies any time we make an analysis using inductive logic.

Precisely due to this fact, alternative conclusions that make less assumptions are more likely to be true. This is evidence against whatever conclusion is drawn by making more assumptions when the two conclusions are competing explanations. In other words, the absence of evidence for the assumptions means that the conclusion based on those assumptions is less likely.

So when you have Explanation A that makes no assumptions and Explanation B that makes 1 assumption, then Explanation A is more likely. The absence of evidence for the assumption made by Explanation B serves as direct evidence that Explanation B is not true. In other words, absence of evidence here has become evidence for absence.

I don't see any way that you could work around this. It's a fundamental principle of inductive logic.

To say that Occam's Razor doesn't apply to the question of God's existence is to say that arguments for God's existence are illogical. I don't think this is what you're trying to say.

 

[Ella S.]

Who said that?



So how would you test if God exists? Whats your scientific method of testing if God exists?

If you yourself agree that there is no empirical evidence for the existence of God and that there are no tests to determine whether God exists (thus making empirical evidence impossible) then why do you think it is a fallacy when someone says that there is a 100% lack of evidence for God? It seems that you yourself affirm this.