PRATT - There is No evidence for God

[Xeletoph]

Skeptic, I believe Christopher Hitchens said it best:

"Claims providing no evidence can be denied without evidence."

This creationist idea that Atheists need to prove that god DOESN'T exist is probably the most wrong any person can be. Of course, considering who we're debating with it shouldn't be a surprise that he's asserting baseless assumptions and performing mental back flips in order to sound logical to himself. If there is no evidence for god, then logically there is not one. *con't*

[Xeletoph]

And, Stormtrek has to deal with that. He may insist that still his god exists, even though there's no support for him. God cannot be demonstrated with evidence, logic, or even in principal b/c theists claim that he is non-physical. The problem with that is humans can only count on one kind of stuff - physical stuff. Everything else is presuppositions and and meaningless traditional babble sugar that has been sugar coated with depth and thoughtfulness. What's left behind is a clever ruse *cont*

[Xeletoph]

which people who lack the power of self thought find themselves falling into. Unfortunately for theism, their Zeitgeist is passing. Now two out of every ten of your neighbors are Atheists, just like Skeptic and I are, and there's no way you can tell the difference, and there's nothing you can do about it. The church's days are numbered - and secular days are on the horizon. Finally, people will be free. :-)

[skepticoz]

This is not just naively wrong, but willfully dishonest and pretentious pseudo-intellectual clap-trap. Circular reasoning (which theists are notoriously guilty of), is not an incumbency of the refuting party. The onus is NOT on atheists to demonstrate that the deist god does not exist. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the claimant. It is the existence of YOUR imaginary friend which is in question. So an atheists refusal to believe in YOUR god, is simply NOT an assumption of any kind.

[skepticoz]

"Now, the only way for such a statement to have meaning, or truth, is to presuppose the non-existence of God." You are completely wrong. My not believing in YOUR GOD (even saying so), is NOT dependent upon the pre-supposition that there is no god. It is your job to convince me (or anybody) on the basis of positive evidence for YOUR assertion. Furthermore my lack of conviction, is not the same as a claim of certainty that their is no god. I may be very skeptical, but NEVER certain about anything.

[skepticoz]

'The non-existence of god' is NOT a claim atheists are required to defend. Your assertion of such, is just another example of creationists attempting to play deliberately dishonest games in service of their motive to try to shift the burden of accountability onto their critics. You are not just balls out wrong but blatantly dishonest to even try this. If you make a claim, you are not entitled to expect it to be granted as a fact, unless somebody proves it not to be.

[skepticoz]

The failure of deists to provide evidence for god, is no different than ANY claim that ANYBODY makes. They are required to furnish the evidence and rationally support their positive assertion with valid positive reasoning. The claim that god-botherers must be right if atheists are wrong is a false dichotomy. The claim of god's existence must stand on it's own merit. Atheists are not required to KNOW (or assume) god doesn't exist in order to be overwhelmingly unconvinced by god's improbability.

[skepticoz]

"However, if we presuppose the existence of the Christian God then it follows that everything is evidence for God."

However, if you PRESUPPOSE the existence of anything you must always fall afoul of circular reasoning. You haven't established any valid evidence based arguments to defend your as yet apparently imaginary friend, where do you get the tenacity to presuppose the existence of ANY god let alone the temerity to privilege the Christan god as guest of honor at your specious game?

[skepticoz]

Obviously the choice is NOT between two mutually inconsistent presuppositions, but a presupposition (that there is a god) that DOES run afoul of circular logic, and the default condition of it's own falsity, of which evidence is required to overturn. And It DOES NOT FOLLOW that everything would have to be evidence for the existence of god. The whole point of finding specific items of evidence, from the world we do live in, is to test the outcome of a falsifiable claim.

[skepticoz]

You have only demonstrated your dishonesty, by trying to invert the onus of proof, circumvent the need to provide evidence, pretend that presupposition of your fairytale is the only fair alternative, and sweepingly declare that all evidence would then support of your baseless claim, without actually looking at any evidence in the real world. The value of evidence (taken from the real world not hypothetical scenarios) is evaluated case by case, not following from YOUR REAL circular assumptions.

[skepticoz]

In the REAL WORLD, we find situations where the evidence MIGHT have vindicated some god but it didn't. One example is the failure of any gods to reach any cultures before they found each other. The news of any god, spreads with the same epidemiology by mundane human migration patterns. Their inheritance of characteristics tells the same story. It looks just as it would if humans just made these religions up. The same for knowledge of advanced technology. God seem totally impotent not omnipotent.

[skepticoz]

The COMPLETE ABSENCE of any evidence of your god, IS a misgiving that make it seem less plausible than the tooth fairy but I maintain that mountains of evidence exists to positively support the claim that the great majority of religions are completely fabricated nonsense. If that is true for most gods/religions why not yours? All religions are based on people so deluded they entitle themselves with the benefits of the same disingenuous irrational mind games you have demonstrated in your video.

[StormTrek]

When the atheist chooses to assert there is no evidence for god he assumes the burden of proof for that claim, as you said:

"The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the claimant."

[skepticoz]

"Atheists are especially prone to making this statement."

Atheists are not PRONE to making this statement at all. It is an observation of self-evident fact, in so much as theists FAIL in their duty to defend a positive assertion for which the evidence is lacking. The 'CLAIM' you are insinuating is just a trivial ploy to reverse the onus, and it is just as self evident as the lack of evidence you fail to procure. No 'CLAIM' is being made that there is no evidence of god. It stands to reason.

[skepticoz]

If you weren't a sly and evil little enemy of the truth, you wouldn't be trying to employ insidious little word games to invert the burden of proof for the IDEA which is the existence of a GOD. It's your IDEA either take ownership of it and cough up evidence or drop it and shut up. But don't try and dance around your absence of evidence and force critics to prove your god doesn't exist. IT DOESN"T WORK THAT WAY. If it doesn't work that way in other areas of knowledge why would it work here?

[skepticoz]

Incidentally it would be a revelation in epistemology if this little trick were valid, because any claim would then be on par with any counter claim that the critic said 'there is no evidence' of the original claim. The Original claim (that there IS evidence for X) is always the one required to be proven. not the claim that no evidence exists for X. Why? because you cant demonstrate a lack of evidence and if the original claimant wants to establish the claim the burden of proof is on them.

[skepticoz]

Put another way. Nobody is required to assume that there is ANY evidence in support of any idea. Indeed we are required by prudent logic, to maintain a skeptical mind until a claim is established by good evidence. There are potentially an infinite number of ideas from the undeniable to the ridiculous and we are not required to entertain any of them unless some evidence is procured to establish them worthy of our conviction. That is where creationism is when viewed in consideration of evidence.

[skepticoz]

The difference between making a positive assertion and pointing out that no evidence has been provided to substantiate that assertion is as follows: The primary assertion is a positive claim requiring that evidence be found. The observation that it hasn't been found is not a separate claim but an observation that depends on the prevailing evidence that has or hasn't been found for the primary claim and if that is lacking, it is to the detriment of the original claim and the claimant.

[skepticoz]

If nobody had ever made any claims as to the existence of god, then nobody would ever have had to notice that there is a lack of evidence for those claims and nobody would ever have to point this out and yet it would still be true. That there is no evidence for anything is an accepted baseline until the claimants of those things demonstrate otherwise. When all the claimant can do is invent convoluted little mind games and tricks to worm out of their responsibility, you know what they're full of.

[skepticoz]

So the lack of evidence is not a claim but an observation ipso facto, and it can't be divorced from the situation it comments on, which the lack of evidence provided to support the primary claim itself owing to the dereliction of duty or failure of the primary claims claimants to procure the required evidence. There is nothing that the observer can do (or is required to do) about the failure of the primary claimant to produce evidence. This observation is not itself a CLAIM but a deal breaker.

[skepticoz]

The original deal to agree some fact has been established, is conditional upon the provision of evidence for that deal. If you wish to establish the fact but don't provide evidence that it is true, then I am not required to do anymore. Just mentioning that you have failed to provide evidence is not a separate claim about the external world. It doesn't require a separate contention of subject matter, because it relates to the same subject. The outstanding evidence STILL rests with the claimant.

[skepticoz]

If this were compared to a tennis match, you would serve and that would represent making a claim. The ball starts in your court and you have the onus of making the serve a legal shot. You swat the ball towards your opponent but it is out by a long shot. The opponent is not required to prove the ball was out, but the fact that is was is not affected by his observation of that fact. You are subject to the foul whether you like it or not. The volley is not returned nor is a new game started.

[skepticoz]

Notice the claim you are pretending to be a new and separate claim "that there is no evidence for god" is not a claim of a positive assertion nor is it based on an external INDEPENDENT fact about the real world, but instead it references the god, and the existence of this god, is the positive PRIMARY assertion for which evidence MUST be provided. I could also claim, '''that you are making a claim' that atheists are claiming' that there is no evidence for god' adding another layer of convolution.

[skepticoz]

You could also claim that my claim, that you claim that atheists are claiming there is no evidence for god is one which remains unestablished, but I could also respond that THIS is just a claim that you have not demonstrated. Who's court is the ball in now? If just calling foul and CLAIMING the ball is in the opponent's court were truly part of the game then there would be a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of smug ignoramuses who might claim hollow victory by stalemate. That's your intent?

[skepticoz]

The reason partisans of reason don't go down this road, is simply because it IS BOGUS. There is only one ACTUAL CLAIM in this recursive chain of bogus pseudo-claims, that is the one which relates directly to external facts of the real world, the only CLAIM being made that can be verified against real evidence is whether the CLAIMED god exists. Anything else is just mundane commentary. You make a CLAIM about the real world, you have to back it up. Commentary about a claim is not itself a CLAIM.

[skepticoz]

And finaly let me just re itterate this point I mentioned earlier:

"Furthermore my lack of conviction, is not the same as a claim of certainty that there is no god. I may be very skeptical, but NEVER certain about anything."

I do not have to establish proof negative for god. The observation that no evidence seems to exist is NOT an attempt to claim CERTAINTY in the non existence of god, however convinced I may personally be. It's not the existence but absence of evidence that holds precedent.

[StormTrek]

An atheist who denies god necessarily "claims" non-god. Hence, though it is implied rather than stated overtly, the atheist is making a positive claim.

In certain practices we do not require a proof of a negative claim - just as you have stated. But that is only when we are able to justify a philosophical foundation for skepticism such as in science and law. No such foundation exists in the metaphysical question of god. Hence, the burden of proof is not escaped by the one claiming non-god.

[skepticoz]

"An atheist who denies god..."

What god? Nobody has established the existence of any god for atheists to deny. A hypothetical deity is no better off than the tooth fairy of the FSM.

"...necessarily "claims" non-god."

BULLSHIT! OK WTF is non-god? I don't claim the existence of non-god or non-tooth fairy, I simply don't believe in the concepts of god or tooth-fairy as conceived, by theists and tooth-fairy believers. You are simply being an ARROGANT TWAT. Don't put claims in the atheists' mouth.

[skepticoz]

In certain... blah blah bullshit bullshit blah blah wank wank blah wank blah ...claiming non-god.

AHHHHHH! FUCKING BULLSHIT YOU LITTLE DICKWAD! I've already hammered this so far up your ass, it seems to be popping back out your mouth. You are just spouting shit to pretend you are right if you get to have the last say. You are also clearly extremely ignorant of even the fundamentals of epistemology and just a deliberate deliberate BULLSHIT ARTIST for SKY DADDY. Expect no more responses from me.

[StormTrek]

You descend into a vulgar rant and then declare your own victory. I suspect you will wake up tomorrow and realize your two previous posts were common in a boring way. Nevertheless

Non-god (~G) is simply a negation of god (G). Thus, ~G is everything that lies outside the set defined as G. If one rejects G, they favor something within ~G. That isn't arrogant, it's a logical necessity.

[Xeletoph]

awesome parable. Very clear and concise.

People like Stormtrek don't understand that for Atheism it's not about DENIAL of god - it's about a lack of proof. If there is a god, it has never been demonstrated by any religion in any time or any place in history. We know this because of the discoveries that critical thinking has unveiled. The world is no longer driven by what is believed, but by what has found to be true.

[Gnomefro]

There's also the issue that proper standards of evidence will exclude a lot of trivia that you might wish should count as evidence.

When atheists say there's no evidence, they obviously insist on high standards of evidence for claims that would overturn natural science, and demand more than an assertion to believe miracles happen.

It is not a tautology as you claim. Rather your belief claim is the tautology. You must assume Christianity is true to believe NT was written by eye witnesses.

[Gnomefro]

"The only way for it to be true is if the Christian God does not exist"

Is of course laughable. For something to qualify as "evidence for" something. It must in some way help us discriminate hypotheses. Otherwise it's just useless information.

So sprouting bs like "everything is evidence of god" is simply idiotic. Simply observing that nature exists is consistent with every single philosophical position in existence.

[artkozak]

yeah, sometimes it gets repetitive I agree!

Well, I think you forget one case (my case). You may also have no assumptions at all regarding the existence of god.

But regarding the bible, it is highly "falsifiable", as opposed to other more subtle interpretation of what god might be.

[Democracylnaction]

Your (and others') "logic" boils down to this:

I declare that God exists

You can't prove that God doesn't exist

Therefore, God exists.

Substitute any imaginable, invisible and conveniently unfalsifiable deity with magical powers in that statement for "God" (such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster) and it becomes clear how ludicrous this "logic" is because that would mean that EVERY imaginable, invisible and conveniently unfalsifiable deity that is declared to exist MUST exist.

[Democracylnaction]

I would like to say that as an atheist, I do not claim that "God does not exist". I merely reject your assertion, implicit in your belief in God, that God does exist. The burden of proof that a thing exists lays on the person or group making the claim that such a thing exists, not the person or group who rejects that claim. As such, 2000+ years of trying an no one has been able to definitively prove the existence of God.

[Pottsdie]

You have no idea what circular logic is.

[StormTrek]

Interesting. Care to explain why you think so.

[UnBeguiled]

Substitute "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" every time you say "The Christian God".

So, do you think the argument that there is no evidence for The Flying Spaghetti Monster is circular?

[bimmjim]

If you look up the definition of the word "Truth" in many dictionaries, you will find that they have def #1, def#2, def#3, etc. Definition number one is always "The objective truth". This is the kind of truth used by science and engineering. If you would trust your life to an airplane then you are trusting your life to objective truth.

Your kind of truth and top down and circular logic would never make an airplane fly.

[StormTrek]

"Definition number one is always "The objective truth". This is the kind of truth used by science and engineering."

Ok, we've established that you have no formal education in science or philosophy.

"Your kind of truth and top down and circular logic would never make an airplane fly."

I see the ridicule in this statement, but where's the analysis. Are we going to further classify you as one of those who claim all their truths are self-evident?

[bimmjim]

StormTrek, you dingbat, you are doing top down logic. I have known people like you and I have found that I can destroy their egos by simply testing them. You are just an ego reciting like a parot.

[StormTrek]

Are you through with your ad hom's yet. Maybe you have an argument or an interesting addition to the discussion...

[Kailoa36]

"The way for that to be true would be if the Christian God does not Exist." Wrong. "There is no evidence for the existence of god," would also be true if, indeed, there were as yet no evidence for the existence of god.

[StormTrek]

According to Christianity, how did the universe come into existence? It was created by God.

Therefore, the entire physical universe is evidence for God given a Christian worldview. It isn't a matter of new evidence coming to light but a matter of how the existing evidence is interpreted. Thus the claim that everything is evidence for the existence of God is tautological - as is the "nothing is evidence" claim.

[loveisallneed]

You have a point with the diest god, but the christian god makes other claims. Like all the 1000's of creator gods don't exist. He answers prayers. He created man. Noah's ark.

[StormTrek]

I suggest that you will be one step closer to becoming a great thinker when you state your premise as a premise and recognize that answers to complex questions may be simple but never easy.

[HubertCumberdale22]

It's completely logical to say that there's no evidence for the existance of the christian, monotheistic god! I know that it's based on the premise that there is no god. I also know that there's proof that this premise is true! Disproving your god is as easy as disproving the barber of the barber paradox (if you don't know what I'm talking about, please google it!).