Lack of evidence

[mikkel_the_dane]

I did not divulge "my evidence of God"

So, your reply makes no sense

But your method is the wrong one, because mine is the correct one.

 

[stvdv]

But your method is the wrong one, because mine is the correct one.

False again

I did not divulge my method

Note: You knowingly reply, like 20 times in a row, misrepresenting my posts, twisting my words etc in a negative way?

I patiently replied to you so far, explaining to you this over and over again, but you show by continuing this way of replying, that you have no respect and just try to negatively criticize whatever I post.

You clearly show you don't take me serious. So from now on I won't take you serious either and reply default to your replies with an empty "BS" or something like that

Of course you are free to reply to me, but you know my response from now on

 

[Heyo]

Take the statement, **god is the universe**. Given a universe where this was true, is there any way, even in principle, we could gather evidence supporting this statement?

That, in fact, is an easy one.
Statements of the form

A is B.
B exists.
Therefore A exists.​

are valid. But they are also pretty meaningless. It tells us that god has the same properties as the universe and nothing more.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

False again

I did not divulge my method

Note: You knowingly reply, like 20 times in a row, misrepresenting my posts, twisting my words etc in a negative way?

I patiently replied to you so far, explaining to you this over and over again, but you show by continuing this way of replying, that you have no respect and just try to negatively criticize whatever I post.

You clearly show you don't take me serious. So from now on I won't take you serious either and reply default to your replies with an empty "BS" or something like that

Of course you are free to reply to me, but you know my response from now on

But I use the wrong method.

 

[Heyo]

To me lack of evidence for a god doesn't mean a god doesn't exist.
It means we don't yet know if a god does or not.

It also means that no conclusions can be drawn, like an obligation to worship or play by its rules.
You don't have to convince me that the god you believe in exists if you want to worship that god. But you better have solid evidence it exists if you want me to worship it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It also means that no conclusions can be drawn, like an obligation to worship or play by its rules.
You don't have to convince me that the god you believe in exists if you want to worship that god. But you better have solid evidence it exists if you want me to worship it.

But that is not unique to God. That is a subset of claiming objective authority and religion is not the only way to do that.

 

[Nimos]

To me lack of evidence for a god doesn't mean a god doesn't exist.
It means we don't yet know if a god does or not.

100's of years ago we had lack of evidence for DNA, evolution, and even dinosaurs... Yet even though unknown to us at the time, they all existed.

While I don't accept or believe in something without evidence, I also will not rule it out or think its impossible.

PS: save your unicorn and spaghetti monster comments for the funny papers . But if you want a unicorn, google narwhal.

The short answer to the question is no.

Surely things can and I think most people expect things to exist even now, that we currently have no clue about, yet that doesn't mean that they ain't real.

The longer answer is, that it comes down to being more specific. What god are we talking about? do you refer to all ideas of them equally or not?

Certain gods have attributes linked to them that I think we can outright say ain't true, while other gods might be vaguer in comparison and they're more difficult to conclude whether they are likely to be true or not.

But lack of evidence or even ways of testing for specific gods, do hold some value in regards to whether one ought to think of them as true or not on equal part with those that we can outright say ain't real, more on the line of saying whether it is reasonable to treat them as if they do, due to the lack of evidence or methods of testing.

Narwhales horns were actually sold as unicorn horns in the past scamming people but were ultimately debunked. So even back then, when people figured out where they really came from, weren't fooled or saw a narwhale as a unicorn.

But does that mean that unicorns couldn't live somewhere in the Universe? No, but despite a horse being possible and animals can have horns, there is no rational reason to assume that a unicorn exists. And if we add some "magical" properties to them, then it becomes even less likely. But again, we can't say with absolute certainty that they don't.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The short answer to the question is no.

Surely things can and I think most people expect things to exist even now, that we currently have no clue about, yet that doesn't mean that they ain't real.

The longer answer is, that it comes down to being more specific. What god are we talking about? do you refer to all ideas of them equally or not?

Certain gods have attributes linked to them that I think we can outright say ain't true, while other gods might be vaguer in comparison and they're more difficult to conclude whether they are likely to be true or not.

But lack of evidence or even ways of testing for specific gods, do hold some value in regards to whether one ought to think of them as true or not on equal part with those that we can outright say ain't real, more on the line of saying whether it is reasonable to treat them as if they do, due to the lack of evidence or methods of testing.

Narwhales horns were actually sold as unicorn horns in the past scamming people but were ultimately debunked. So even back then, when people figured out where they really came from, weren't fooled or saw a narwhale as a unicorn.

But does that mean that unicorns couldn't live somewhere in the Universe? No, but despite a horse being possible and animals can have horns, there is no rational reason to assume that a unicorn exists. And if we add some "magical" properties to them, then it becomes even less likely. But again, we can't say with absolute certainty that they don't.

The limit is as always the is-ought problem for which evidence only works on is and not on ought, for which what we ought to do with claims without evidence, is without evidence.

 

[1213]

To me lack of evidence for a god doesn't mean a god doesn't exist.
... ...But if you want a unicorn, google narwhal.

I agree that lack of evidence tells only that person has no evidence. But the real unicorn is Elasmotherium.

 

[PruePhillip]

To me lack of evidence for a god doesn't mean a god doesn't exist.
It means we don't yet know if a god does or not.

100's of years ago we had lack of evidence for DNA, evolution, and even dinosaurs... Yet even though unknown to us at the time, they all existed.

While I don't accept or believe in something without evidence, I also will not rule it out or think its impossible.

PS: save your unicorn and spaghetti monster comments for the funny papers . But if you want a unicorn, google narwhal.

Science is about the corporate beliefs, that is, beliefs have to be provable to everyone and anyone.
Faith is about private beliefs - it comes down to your personal and private experiences. And without these experiences you are not considered to have understood anything about God.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

To me lack of evidence for a god doesn't mean a god doesn't exist.
It means we don't yet know if a god does or not.

100's of years ago we had lack of evidence for DNA, evolution, and even dinosaurs... Yet even though unknown to us at the time, they all existed.

While I don't accept or believe in something without evidence, I also will not rule it out or think its impossible.

PS: save your unicorn and spaghetti monster comments for the funny papers . But if you want a unicorn, google narwhal.

No it doesn't mean a god doesn't exist.

What it does mean, is that there is no reason to believe a god DOES exist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Science is about the corporate beliefs, that is, beliefs have to be provable to everyone and anyone.
Faith is about private beliefs - it comes down to your personal and private experiences. And without these experiences you are not considered to have understood anything about God.

As long as you don't claim yours are the correct one about God and mine are not, we can agree.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

What about the lack of current available evidence? Evidence for the existence of other continents didn’t exist for the Europeans until they traveled the sea.

 

[PruePhillip]

As long as you don't claim yours are the correct one about God and mine are not, we can agree.

Sure, as long as you are happy with their being more than one God, in contradiction to each other.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure, as long as you are happy with their being more than one God, in contradiction to each other.

That is fine with me, because I have different personal experience of contradictions when it comes to God.

 

[PruePhillip]

That is fine with me, because I have different personal experience of contradictions when it comes to God.

So you are fine with the peace, humility and forgiveness of Jesus, and the killing and conquering of Mohammed ???

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you are fine with the peace, humility and forgiveness of Jesus, and the killing and conquering of Mohammed ???

Well, I don't judge the actions of other humans while claiming God. That kind of judgment I leave to God. As me, I have an opinion on that, but that is mine for the everyday world.

 

[PruePhillip]

Well, I don't judge the actions of other humans while claiming God. That kind of judgment I leave to God. As me, I have an opinion on that, but that is mine for the everyday world.

It's fairly plain for Jesus - what you have done to others God will do to you. So religious leaders who kill their apostates have broken a serious law. Same with those who preach that adultery is acceptable, or enriching themselves at the expense of others. In Christianity the doctrine is laid out in Matt 5,6 and 7 as to what is acceptable behavior.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's fairly plain for Jesus - what you have done to others God will do to you. So religious leaders who kill their apostates have broken a serious law. Same with those who preach that adultery is acceptable, or enriching themselves at the expense of others. In Christianity the doctrine is laid out in Matt 5,6 and 7 as to what is acceptable behavior.

I still have different personal experiences.

 

[Revoltingest]

It only means that the person claiming it:
1) Did not find evidence for God
2) Lacks the ability to recognize God
3) Uses the wrong method to get evidence
4) ...

Also, if those who know don't share their evidence then such a claim would be false too of course
@stvdvRF

We need a list of all the gods claimed to exist.
And for each, we need a list of features / traits
that would be detectable in the natural world.