The burden of proof

[Nilly]

Well, I experimented with belief in God and if a result is evidence than there is evidence. I have gotten results.

See above I have evidence apparently.

Great! What was your experiment? Was it falsifiable? Falsifiability is a basic requirement for any experiment to seriously be able consider its results. We've been searching for a falsifiable method to test the existence of god for a millenia. Make sure to write it up, a nobel prize is waiting for you for sure, no-one else has ever been able to devise one!

 

[CLAX1911]

Great! What was your experiment? Was it falsifiable? Falsifiability is a basic requirement for any experiment to seriously be able consider its results. We've been searching for a falsifiable method to test the existence of god for a millenia. Make sure to write it up, a nobel prize is waiting for you for sure, no-one else has ever been able to devise one!

I don't exactly know if the evidence is falsifiable. All I can really say is that it may be.

Thus it isn't irrational to believe in God.

 

[Nilly]

I don't exactly know if the evidence is falsifiable. All I can really say is that it may be.

Thus it isn't irrational to believe in God.

Experiments that are falsifiable (not necessarily formal) result in usable evidence. That experiment could be to see whether you survive your daily commute, or if cheese floats. Once you have evidence from these results, you can then begin to build a probabilistic picture of the experiment.

Belief in god is irrational because not only is there no evidence of such an entity existing, but there isn't a falsifiable experiment, even in principle to gather evidence about the existence of god as an entity. Such beliefs require one to create very complicated and implausible scenarios to explain the absence of any evidence in favor of them.

 

[CLAX1911]

Experiments that are falsifiable (not necessarily formal) result in usable evidence. That experiment could be to see whether you survive your daily commute, or if cheese floats. Once you have evidence from these results, you can then begin to build a probabilistic picture of the experiment.

Belief in god is irrational because not only is there no evidence of such an entity existing, but there isn't a falsifiable experiment, even in principle to gather evidence about the existence of god as an entity. Such beliefs require one to create very complicated and implausible scenarios to explain the absence of any evidence in favor of them.

You keep repeating that it is irrational to believe in things that exist in the absence of evidence. I have given you two scenarios where there is completely no evidence yet it isn't irrational to believe in them.

You are mistaken. I have proven it.

It's plausible that God exists. You haven't removed any plausibility. You haven't even scratched the surface.

 

[DDD]

There is no actual empirical evidence that can support the existence of religious concepts such as: "God," "Afterlife," "Son of God," "Spirit," "Holy Spirit," etc. This means that there is no reason to believe such claims on logical and reasonable grounds. Believing them nevertheless, out of faith or so is possible on a personal level.

But why should the rest of us believe them? Just take the religious word for it?

 

[CLAX1911]

There is no actual empirical evidence that can support the existence of religious concepts such as: "God," "Afterlife," "Son of God," "Spirit," "Holy Spirit," etc. This means that there is no reason to believe such claims on logical and reasonable grounds. Believing them nevertheless, out of faith or so is possible on a personal level.

But why should the rest of us believe them? Just take the religious word for it?

Don't believe it. I don't believe much of what religion says. You shouldn't believe it if you don't want to.

All I'm saying is that it is rational to believe in God. Empirical evidence supporting something isn't necessary for it to be rational to believe it.

 

[Nilly]

You keep repeating that it is irrational to believe in things that exist in the absence of evidence. I have given you two scenarios where there is completely no evidence yet it isn't irrational to believe in them.

You are mistaken. I have proven it.

It's plausible that God exists. You haven't removed any plausibility. You haven't even scratched the surface.

I have shown you that there is evidence of those things. Our past experiences of them constitute evidence of them.

If instead of 'dying on a commute to work' you said 'dying on a trip through a wormhole', then that would constitute a scenario of which we have no evidence for. In which case it would not be rational to believe you would necessarily make it through the wormhole alive.

 

[blarg]

Either God exists or he doesn't. That is one of two options and both are equally likely.

Rant and rave all you wish.

Unless you can prove anything you aren't really saying anything.

im not sure any 1 can tell which is more likely

 

[Paschendale]

Either God exists or he doesn't. That is one of two options and both are equally likely.

Rant and rave all you wish.

Unless you can prove anything you aren't really saying anything.

No. They are not equally likely. Not even close. That is the point that seems lost in this discussion. It is really really really unlikely that any gods at all exist, and even more unlikely that any specific god exists.

 

[CLAX1911]

I have shown you that there is evidence of those things. Our past experiences of them constitute evidence of them.

No You haven't. There is no evidence that I'm not going to get hit by a truck on my commute. You have fraudulently claimed there is. All there is is the notion that it hasn't happened yet. That isn't evidence that it won't happen tomorrow. I don't care what spin you try and place on it.

If instead of 'dying on a commute to work' you said 'dying on a trip through a wormhole', then that would constitute a scenario of which we have no evidence for.

There is no evidence that I won't die on a commute to work tomorrow. You were mistaken the first time you said their was and you will be mistaken every subsequent time you say it. There is no way to know.

In which case it would not be rational to believe you would necessarily make it through the wormhole alive.

Evidence isn't required to make belief in God rational. Obviously.

 

[CLAX1911]

No. They are not equally likely. Not even close. That is the point that seems lost in this discussion. It is really really really unlikely that any gods at all exist, and even more unlikely that any specific god exists.

Based on what?

 

[CLAX1911]

im not sure any 1 can tell which is more likely

Of course you can't nobody can.

 

[Logicman]

That would also be your opinion.

And those were just eight of the Messianic prophecies.

You've never seriously studied the New Testament, have you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekaKL218q_s

 

[tosca1]

If I perform an experiment 3 times and I get a result, that is evidence that if I do the experiment a 4th time, I will get the same result. That is evidence, no matter if your experiment is measuring gravity or commuting into work. 1000 successful commutes into work is evidence that the 1001th will also be successful.

Previous occurrences happening is evidence. Evidence directly affects probabilities. Without evidence, you can't build probabilities of an event happening.

You believe in something on pure faith - with nothing to support your claim, for crying out loud.....and you lecture about evidences? So, you not only contradict science, you also contradict yourself. REPEATEDLY.


All you continue to do is prove what should be obvious to everyone following the discussion.


What you do is give me proof to support my claim (through observation and experience with some atheist posters):

You're just another evidence proving that a lot of atheists are so confused with what they believe - they don't know whether they're coming or going.


Anyway....who do you think has the credibility to spout of such things? You? Or scientists?


One thing stands out among atheists - they seem to be scientists in the closet! They all seem to know and fully understand all the intricacies of science, in whatever field to boot! They all seemed to have grown up in the lab. :lol:

 

[tosca1]

A lot of vocal atheists here are simply influenced by New Atheism. You could tell by the arguments they use....the way they try to reason.....the way they engage. That's too bad.

 

[blarg]

so people that say their is no god and people that say their is a god are both responsible for proving their claims and science has neither proven nor disproven gods

what was the point of all of this?

 

[tosca1]

so people that say their is no god and people that say their is a god are both responsible for proving their claims and science has neither proven nor disproven gods

what was the point of all of this?

If you still wonder about the point of all this - then most definitely, you ought to go back and re-read from the very first page. You're lost. That's the problem when you jump in the fray without knowing the root of it all.


Don't just skim. READ, and understand what's being said.

 

[blarg]

If you still wonder about the point for all this - then most definitely, you ought to go back and re-read from the very first page. You're lost. That's the problem when you jump in the fray without knowing the root of it all.


Don't just skim. READ, and understand what's being said.

no I get the point you want hard atheists to be able to prove their claims

while you lie about support for your own

 

[tosca1]

no I get the point you want hard atheists to be able to prove their claims

while you lie about support for your own

:roll:


You lie to, and only fool yourself.

 

[blarg]

:roll:


You lie to, and only fool yourself.

just not in this case

 

[tosca1]

just not in this case

So, you admit you lie to yourself all the time. Why should we believe, "just not in this case?" :lol:

You should listen to Nilly's lecture about evidence.

 

[blarg]

So, you admit you lie to yourself all the time. Why should we believe, "just not in this case?" :lol:

You should listen to Nilly's lecture about evidence.

now now every one has biases should not listen to nay one who says they don't :mrgreen:

 

[calamity]

God has no choice but to cede ground to science. As knowledge expands, God is pushed backward to just beyond the range of scientific explanation. In some ways, that makes God more powerful (because the universe is now so much greater than previously understood). In other ways, it diminishes God to the point of insignificance. A God who is behind the scenes, invisibly pulling the levers of creation, is a God that might as well not even exist.

Here's what I find odd. Almost every fervent believer of god, Jesus and Mary completely agrees that Zeus, Apollo and Aphrodite are nonsensical myths. Gods living on mountain tops have been rendered obsolete. Almost no one disagrees. But yet, they insist this newer version of god: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit residing in "heaven"; are real. It's an amazing logical disconnect.

 

[zyzygy]

Here's what I find odd. Almost every fervent believer of god, Jesus and Mary completely agrees that Zeus, Apollo and Aphrodite are nonsensical myths. Gods living on mountain tops have been rendered obsolete. Almost no one disagrees. But yet, they insist this newer version of god: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit residing in "heaven"; are real. It's an amazing logical disconnect.

Rem acu tetigisti. Why the religious never get that point is a mystery to me.

 

[zyzygy]

My argument isn't that God exists but that it's rational to believe God exists. Somebody introduced probability as evidence and that was a mistake.

Because I would say the existence of the universe indicates a probability that it was created by an intelligence. I find it improbable that it created itself.

Who or what created that intelligence?