100% lack of evidence to God

[firedragon]

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?

 

[John53]

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

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have noted a few atheists make the claim that God does not exist because there is a 100% lack of evidence.

Who are these atheists?

Its a very famous atheistic apologetic shared by many.

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?

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

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).

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.

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)

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.

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.

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?

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.

 

[stvdv]

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 love it, wonderfully explained

 

[firedragon]

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

Thats fair based on your epistemology. But your standards should be rational. Thus, I dont mind hearing your epistemology out. What do you mean by evidence?

 

[stvdv]

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.

Thanks for sharing your detailed thoughts; nice

Correct would be "The Atheist found no evidence".

 

[John53]

Thats fair based on your epistemology. But your standards should be rational. Thus, I dont mind hearing your epistemology out. What do you mean by evidence?

Let me google epistemology.

The evidence I evaluate is varied. I read the bible twice, I've studied Aboriginal mythology, I've read parts of the Koran and looked a little into the Hindu creation story, listened to peoples stories of miracles and their reasons for believing.

 

[Nimos]

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.

Im not one of those and I would apply the same requirements to these to demonstrate their claim as I would a religious person.

My guess is that these people will look at the idea of God as one would that of a unicorn. We know how the unicorn originated, it was created as a fantasy creature and therefore it is very easy to draw the conclusion that these do not exist. Similar I would imagine that these people will make the claim, that we know where God(s) comes from as well. We still haven't seen any demonstration from such being, that we can with absolute certainty say were done by a God. Pretty much all claims made in religious texts, regarding "supernatural" things have either been demonstrated to be wrong or lack demonstration. For instance, people claiming that lightning came from gods, curses, droughts etc. as punishment from angry gods, have all been explained. People rising from the dead, able to walk on water, heal the sick etc. have not been demonstrated.

So as with unicorns, one could draw the conclusion that God(s) exist just as much as they do.

My personal view, as an atheist, is that I don't know if a God like being exist or not. I am however rather convinced that none of the human created God(s) that we know of, exist.

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.

I think that is a bit weird way of writing it. The PCR, tests for whether or not the virus is present, so it is a test directed at the virus. And if not found, we draw the conclusion that you are not likely to have 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?

As explained above, I don't think you would look at this exactly the same way as you would that of a vaccine, but more as one would with the example of the unicorn and God.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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?

It's not really a situation.


When there is nothing whatsoever to begin with, then what do you even test?

The fact is, there is no evidence to even start with , much less test it sooo....

It's pretty obvious where the lack of evidence lays.

Let's just say things speak for themselves 100%

 

[stvdv]

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?

There is no test

Can you prove your claim that there is no test?

 

[firedragon]

Let me google epistemology.

The evidence I evaluate is varied. I read the bible twice, I've studied Aboriginal mythology, I've read parts of the Koran and looked a little into the Hindu creation story, listened to peoples stories of miracles and their reasons for believing.

Do you consider scriptural evidence? How could that be? Maybe I dont understand.

 

[stvdv]

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?

There is no test

That's why there is a lack of evidence.

Can you prove your claim, that there IS lack of evidence?

 

[firedragon]

Im not one of those and I would apply the same requirements to these to demonstrate their claim as I would a religious person.

Very good. But that's not the topic so doing that is a logical fallacy.

I think that is a bit weird way of writing it. The PCR, tests for whether or not the virus is present, so it is a test directed at the virus. And if not found, we draw the conclusion that you are not likely to have it.

I think you repeated what I said in different ways. Maybe you should read the OP once more and you will understand the point.

As explained above, I don't think you would look at this exactly the same way as you would that of a vaccine, but more as one would with the example of the unicorn and God.

Irrelevant.

 

[firedragon]

Can you prove your claim, that there IS lack of evidence?

Please say that again so that I can understand why you asked that?

 

[firedragon]

Can you prove your claim that there is no test?

What claim?

 

[firedragon]

When there is nothing whatsoever to begin with, then what do you even test?

Very clever. You nailed it. So you come from the standard that "there is nothing". Thats your foundation.

Can you prove there is nothing? Or is that because there is no evidence?

So your circular reasoning is "there is no evidence, so there is nothing, and because there is nothing, there is no evidence"?

 

[stvdv]

Please say that again so that I can understand why you asked that?

+

What claim?

The question was not meant for you
I quoted you to include the context
So there is no confusion

Sorry for being not clear enough

 

[firedragon]

+

The question was not meant for you
I quoted you to include the context
So there is no confusion

Sorry for being not clear enough

Ah. I cant see the other person in your post stvdv. I dont know why. Apologies.

 

[stvdv]

Ah. I cant see the other person in your post stvdv. I dont know why. Apologies.

Amazing, but nice coincidence in the context of this thread (we are both talking about my posts #10 + #12, right?)

You got me worried that I messed up, so I double checked (2 phones), but I do see the other person (tagliatellimonster) in my posts #10 and #12 on both phones

 

[firedragon]

Amazing, but nice coincidence in the context of this thread (we are both talking about my posts #10 + #12, right?)

You got me worried that I messed up, so I double checked (2 phones), but I do see the other person (tagliatellimonster) in my posts #10 and #12 on both phones

I cant see that person. I wonder if I had blocked someone at some point for some reason. Strange because I block people who make insults personally like taking family or something.