Atheism (2)

[Non sequitur]

how do you know He 's not there. Just your opinion?

It was a joke; you asked.

I know you will assert that, of course a god is there.

 

[Gadarene]

so you cannot,

for everything your worth,

prove it?

then your premise is false.

I don't need proof positive to show that the belief isn't justified. I've already stated why it isn't. I've stated that there is no evidence to suggest God is anywhere. What evidence do you have that he is somewhere?

You evidently do not generally presume the existence/presence of something based on an absence of evidence. Otherwise, you would believe in the existence/presence of many more things that you do, a great many hypothetical things. Thus, I submit that you are being inconsistent in your defence of the deity you have an pre-exisiting emotional investment in.

My argument does not show that God definitely does not exist, but it does show that belief in him is unjustifiable.

 

[createdtoworship]

I don't need proof positive to show that the belief isn't justified. I've already stated why it isn't. I've stated that there is no evidence to suggest God is anywhere. What evidence do you have that he is somewhere?

You evidently do not generally presume the existence/presence of something based on an absence of evidence. Otherwise, you would believe in the existence/presence of many more things that you do, a great many hypothetical things. Thus, I submit that you are being inconsistent in your defence of the deity you have an pre-exisiting emotional investment in.

My argument does not show that God definitely does not exist, but it does show that belief in him is unjustifiable.

because only an agent does not need causality, and an agent is personality.

so because there is causation in the universe and because we all came from somewhere, we conclude God did it.

Otherwise you are forced to believe in a huge bang that exploded itself out of God knows what. And all the while this force is an agent of personality that Has as much knowledge as we do. Just nonsense and confusion.

 

[createdtoworship]

now (I answered your question of God's existence) now, I am suggesting you to prove one place where God definiately is not.


Just one.

 

[Gadarene]

because only an agent does not need causality, and an agent is personality.

Er......do go ahead and justify that one, won't you.

so because there is causation in the universe and because we all came from somewhere, we conclude God did it.

Wrong. You can at best conclude a god did it - and that's not much of a statement because all you know about its actions are that it created a universe.

Otherwise you are forced to believe in a huge bang that exploded itself out of God knows what. And all the while this force is an agent of personality that Has as much knowledge as we do. Just nonsense and confusion.

It is nonsense, which is good that I don't believe in a Big Bang that bears knowledge and personality. It is utterly unnecessary for a cause to bear personality so one cannot simply presume the cause is your god because you've asserted that it must have a personality.

now (I answered your question of God's existence) now

You didn't.

I am suggesting you to prove one place where God definiately is not.

Already answered this - there is no evidence that God is anywhere, and a lack of evidence is not proof of presence.

Please respond to this point now, instead of dodging it.

 

[createdtoworship]

Please respond to this point now, instead of dodging it.

no I refuse to comment further, until you provide an answer. I await your speedy reply.

what evidence do you have that God does not exist,

you are comitting numerous fallacies,

"shifting the burden of proof"
and
Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

The fallaciousness of arguments from ignorance does not mean that one can never possess good reasons for thinking that something does not exist, an idea captured by philosopher Bertrand Russell's teapot, a hypothetical china teapot revolving about the sun between Earth and Mars; however this would fall more duly under the arena of pragmatism, wherein a position must be demonstrated or proven in order to be upheld, and therefore the burden of proof is on the argument's proponent. See also Occam's razor (assume simplicity over complexity).

wikipedia

 

[Gadarene]

no I refuse to comment further, until you provide an answer. I await your speedy reply.

what evidence do you have that God does not exist

you are comitting numerous fallacies,

"shifting the burden of proof"

For goodness sakes. I've told you I don't think there is evidence for God's existence anywhere. My stance is not that I have evidence that God doesn't exist - my stance is that I have no good evidence that he does. And I have not once claimed in this thread that God does not exist.

Again, you would do well to actually read threads before you respond to them. The difference between strong and weak atheism has been pointed out to you and others countless times already.

and Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary") is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false

This is the fallacy you have been committing for several posts now. You justify continued belief in God because there is no evidence to the contrary.

By contrast, I have not said that the existence of God is disproven by a lack of evidence, I am saying that continued belief in his existence is not justified by a lack of evidence.

Strawman fallacy for you as well.

 

[Zack454]

so you cannot,

for everything your worth,

prove it?

then your premise is false.

You make me incredible amounts of angry. How do you know god exists everywhere, other than "'Cause"? You are not say anything, you are just saying one thing, which is one ridiculously biased thing, over and over again.

 

[createdtoworship]

For goodness sakes. I've told you I don't think there is evidence for God's existence anywhere. My stance is not that I have evidence that God doesn't exist - my stance is that I have no good evidence that he does. And I have not once claimed in this thread that God does not exist.

Again, you would do well to actually read threads before you respond to them. The difference between strong and weak atheists has been pointed out to you and others countless times already.



This is the fallacy you have been committing for several posts now. You justify continued belief in God because there is no evidence to the contrary.

By contrast, I have not said that the existence of God is disproven by a lack of evidence, I am saying that continued belief in his existence is not justified by a lack of evidence.

Strawman fallacy for you as well.

My stance is not that I have evidence that God doesn't exist - my stance is that I have no good evidence that he does.

that is a fallacy

Evidence against one position is not evidence FOR the other. Because they could both be wrong!

thats an argument from ignorance. Read the last post it provides the definition for you.

 

[createdtoworship]

You make me incredible amounts of angry. How do you know god exists everywhere, other than "'Cause"? You are not say anything, you are just saying one thing, which is one ridiculously biased thing, over and over again.

thanks, repetition is the father of learning

 

[Gadarene]

My stance is not that I have evidence that God doesn't exist - my stance is that I have no good evidence that he does.

that is a fallacy

Evidence against one position is not evidence FOR the other. Because they could both be wrong!

thats an argument from ignorance. Read the last post it provides the definition for you.

Erm....either a particular god exists, or it does not exist. There is no false dilemma here. I've already said I'm arguing specifically against the Christian god - although I would argue the level of evidence for most posited supernatural entities is on about the same level, that is to say, none.

And again, this is simply not a case of taking evidence against one position as evidence for another. It's a matter of what constitutes a standard of good evidence, and do I consistently apply that?

Would you believe in Russell's teapot, if I asserted it to exist? After all, can't prove it doesn't exist!

Would you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, if I asserted it existed? After all, can't prove it doesn't exist!

Would you believe in unevidenced entity X, if I asserted it existed? After all, can't prove it doesn't exist!

Do you get it now?

I would wager you don't believe in the existence of far more values of X based on the argument from ignorance than those you do.

Ergo, you are being inconsistent as heck.

 

[createdtoworship]

Erm....either a particular god exists, or it does not exist. There is no false dilemma here. I've already said I'm arguing specifically against the Christian god - although I would argue the level of evidence for most posited supernatural entities is on about the same level, that is to say, none.

And again, this is simply not a case of taking evidence against one position as evidence for another. It's a matter of what constitutes a standard of good evidence, and do I consistently apply that?

Would you believe in Russell's teapot, if I asserted it to exist? After all, can't prove it doesn't exist!

Would you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, if I asserted it existed? After all, can't prove it doesn't exist!

Would you believe in unevidenced entity X, if I asserted it existed? After all, can't prove it doesn't exist!

Do you get it now?

I would wager you don't believe in the existence of far more values of X based on the argument from ignorance than those you do.

Ergo, you are being inconsistent as heck.

your argument is false because you technically can't prove the nonexistence of ANY THING, including flying spaghetti monsters

 

[Gadarene]

your argument is false because you technically can't prove the nonexistence of ANY THING, including flying spaghetti monsters

I am NOT saying that I have proven the nonexistence of ANYTHING in the sense that you are claiming. I have never claimed that.

I AM saying that there is no good reason to BELIEVE in the existence of an unevidenced ANYTHING.

You seem to want cast-iron metaphysical certitude proof, I'm offering proof beyond reasonable doubt for the simple reason that when we aren't dealing with something that people don't have massive emotional investment in, proving existence is pretty trivial and involves providing evidence that it exists, and we generally don't rate belief in flying electron fairies or whatever that don't have positive evidence for them. But for some reason (ha!) this becomes a massive ordeal when dealing with people's god claims, with inconsistency in approach rearing its ugly head.

 

[createdtoworship]

READ MY POSTS.

I am NOT saying that I have proven the nonexistence of ANYTHING in the sense that you are claiming. I have never claimed that.

I AM saying that there is no good reason to BELIEVE in the existence of an unevidenced ANYTHING.

Okay I get it.

just prove it now.

 

[Gadarene]

Okay I get it.

just prove it now.

Prove what?

I'm not trying to prove nonexistence. Did you read my last post?

I'm pointing out that belief in something based on a lack of positive evidence while disbelieving in 99% of all other claims with a similar lack of evidence is special pleading and thus not justifiable.

 

[createdtoworship]

Prove what?

I'm not trying to prove nonexistence. Did you read my last post?

I'm pointing out that belief in something based on a lack of positive evidence while disbelieving in 99% of all other claims with a similar lack of evidence is special pleading and thus not justifiable.

you said

I AM saying that there is no good reason to BELIEVE in the existence of an unevidenced ANYTHING

so prove it.

 

[Gadarene]

you said

so prove it.

Give me what you think your best justification for belief is, and I'll address it.

I have already addressed and shown the inconsistency in your repeated arguments from ignorance, so you may want to try something else.

 

[Non sequitur]

you said



so prove it.

Besides your god, start listing the un-evidenced thing that we should believe in.

 

[createdtoworship]

Besides your god, start listing the un-evidenced thing that we should believe in.

that pretty much sums it up.

now prove it

 

[createdtoworship]

Give me what you think your best justification for belief is, and I'll address it.

I have already addressed and shown the inconsistency in your repeated arguments from ignorance, so you may want to try something else.

this is an athiest thread, so prove your athiesm. I don't need to prove Christianity. It's not a christian topic!