Not ebing able to find evidence does not mean that there is none
Debate Rounds (3)
Someone can not claim that, " There is NO evidence" of something. That is an arrogant not ignorant claim.
"To that which you are ignorant you shall not make claims."
This refers to all scientific method in evaluating anything from religion, chemistry and literature, to things like thieves and germs.
I call BIGOT on everyone who claims there is NO evidence God exists simply because they have not done what need to be done. I also call BIGOT on all those who claim there is no evidence to something because they can't personally Source the information on the Internet. LOL
There is a chance that evidence supporting God exists. There is a chance my entire life is a dream. There is a chance that a lot of things are true, but until I see evidence, I will not make assertions. God's existence is an assertion. A suspect's guiltiness is an assertion.
God's existence is the claim to be proven, not the other way around.
I claim that in practicality, no evidence for God exists, because none has come into my view. And for me, theory is just that- theory- and it has no affect on life.
This debate is not about God. It is about he fact that, " someone cannot claim evidence does not exist because they have not heard of or seen it."
I move to have this debate reinitiated with someone who can read.
In fact. he's a bigot, and well on his way to being a tard.
stay in school kid.
YOU brought up God in saying, "I call BIGOT on everyone who claims there is NO evidence God exists". Religion/God is the best/ most applicable field this debate could be in reference to. I specified a topic for the sake of clarity in my argument. My statement, with "God and "religion" replaced with whatever subject is chosen, would work just the same. I am a pragmatist on all issues.
Please do not make assumptions. I can read very well, thank you very much, as you should have been able to notice through the fact that I responded to your argument.
Dictionary.com defines 'bigot' as
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.
I am not being intolerant of your opinion. I am debating it via an example. In fact. I would have to say that you are being intolerant of mine.
Oh, and also: I am not a "tard". I am not on my way to becoming one, either. Retardation results from serious genetic disorders, most of which are noticeable from birth and of which, I have none.
"Not being able to find evidence does not mean that there is none".
It is abhorrent arrogance to suggest that there is no evidence simply because you personally have not seen or FOUND any.
In such a case you, you have no right to assert that there is no evidence available.
It is idiocy to attest that evidence is non existent because you are ignorant to it.
My Opponent is required to address this Topic as his round one and two debate, so evaluate his arguments carefully, and we can anticipate that THAT alone is what he will respond to next. I have made my case.
Schrodinger's cat is a thought experiment that goes as follows: A cat is locked in a room where he has a fifty percent chance of dying in the next 30 minutes. If one waits that time, is the cat dead or alive? Schrodinger and Einstein, and the majority of scientists both in their era and since, agree that it is both. The cat exists in a quantum state of being both dead and alive, in equal proportions, until you open the door and find out.
If there was, say, a 2/3 chance that the cat would die, then the quantum state would be that much more dead than alive. The same applies to any probability.
Why does this matter? The way I see it, the evidence no one has yet found is less likely to exist than to not exist. This being applied to the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment, the evidence exists in a quantum state of existence and nonexistence, and is nonexistent more than it is existent.
To go back to the example you originally brought up, this means God exists in a state of combined nonexistence and existence. Depending on the trust one puts in the Bible (aka Faith), existence could hold more or less sway than nonexistence, and vice versa. But no matter what, there is always at least a little sliver of nonexistence and at least a little sliver of existence.
But back to what I said earlier: I am a pragmatist. I think that if no evidence has yet to be uncovered for any given claim, the probability is that none ever will. Ergo, there is no claim I view as true until I see evidence that supports it.
Thank you for a very fun, engaging, and entertaining debate. Please, though, try to be a little nicer and a little less bigoted.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.