Total Posts:98|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evidence - How it Works

Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 3:02:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I find it incredibly sad that this is necessary, but it obviously is. Theists commonly insist that atheists should present evidence for the non-existence of God. And yet, theists don't seem to realize that "evidence of non-existence" is a contradiction.

- Evidence speaks to existence.

- A lack of evidence speaks to non-existence.

It's that simple. And yet, still we have theists screaming that we're evading our "burden of proof" in disbelieving that for which there is no evidence. Evidence requires a demonstrable link between the evidence, and that for which it serves as evidence.

If you can't demonstrate that link, then you don't have evidence. This is the problem when theists claim that the existence of Earth, life and the universe are "evidence" for God. There is no demonstrable link. Their link is asserted, and only asserted. It's no different than asserting that Bugs Bunny created carrots, therefore carrots are evidence of Bugs Bunny.

If you can demonstrate a link, then you have evidence. But you can NEVER demonstrate a link to that which has never existed. In order to have a link, the object to be evidenced has to exist.

Disagree? Then think it through. What does evidence for the non-existence of traffic look like? It looks exactly like the lack of evidence for cross traffic. And that's what we look for when waiting at a stop sign.

How many theists live in constant fear of the pride of lions in their living room? They have no evidence that the lions don't exist. But they do have a lack of evidence that they do exist - the same thing atheists (and everyone else) has for God.

So understand that there is no such thing as "evidence of non-existence". Non-existence is always supported by a lack of evidence, never by the presence of evidence. Only existence is supported by evidence.

Anyone having any difficulty grasping this common and simple set of rules is openly welcomed to discuss.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 3:07:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 3:02:40 PM, Beastt wrote:
I find it incredibly sad that this is necessary, but it obviously is. Theists commonly insist that atheists should present evidence for the non-existence of God. And yet, theists don't seem to realize that "evidence of non-existence" is a contradiction.

- Evidence speaks to existence.

- A lack of evidence speaks to non-existence.

It's that simple. And yet, still we have theists screaming that we're evading our "burden of proof" in disbelieving that for which there is no evidence. Evidence requires a demonstrable link between the evidence, and that for which it serves as evidence.

If you can't demonstrate that link, then you don't have evidence. This is the problem when theists claim that the existence of Earth, life and the universe are "evidence" for God. There is no demonstrable link. Their link is asserted, and only asserted. It's no different than asserting that Bugs Bunny created carrots, therefore carrots are evidence of Bugs Bunny.

If you can demonstrate a link, then you have evidence. But you can NEVER demonstrate a link to that which has never existed. In order to have a link, the object to be evidenced has to exist.

Disagree? Then think it through. What does evidence for the non-existence of traffic look like? It looks exactly like the lack of evidence for cross traffic. And that's what we look for when waiting at a stop sign.

How many theists live in constant fear of the pride of lions in their living room? They have no evidence that the lions don't exist. But they do have a lack of evidence that they do exist - the same thing atheists (and everyone else) has for God.

So understand that there is no such thing as "evidence of non-existence". Non-existence is always supported by a lack of evidence, never by the presence of evidence. Only existence is supported by evidence.

Anyone having any difficulty grasping this common and simple set of rules is openly welcomed to discuss.

This may be the most patronizing and factually wrong thread ever started.

There is something called a professional logician.

http://departments.bloomu.edu...

Proving a negative is what is really being argued here, despite the semantic BS. And what do professional logicians state?

Can you construct a valid deductive argument with all true premises that yields the conclusion that there are no unicorns? Sure. Here"s one, using the valid inference procedure of modus tollens:

1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence in the fossil record.
2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record.
3. Therefore, unicorns never existed.

Someone might object that that was a bit too fast ?719; after all, I didn"t prove that the two premises were true. I just asserted that they were true. Well, that"s right. However, it would be a grievous mistake to insist that someone prove all the premises of any argument they might give. Here"s why. The only way to prove, say, that there is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record, is by giving an argument to that conclusion. Of course one would then have to prove the premises of that argument by giving further arguments, and then prove the premises of those further arguments, ad infinitum. Which premises we should take on credit and which need payment up front is a matter of long and involved debate among epistemologists. But one thing is certain: if proving things requires that an infinite number of premises get proved first, we"re not going to prove much of anything at all, positive or negative.

Maybe people mean that no inductive argument will con- clusively, indubitably prove a negative proposition beyond all shadow of a doubt. For example, suppose someone argues that we"ve scoured the world for Bigfoot, found no credible evidence of Bigfoot"s existence, and therefore there is no Bigfoot. A classic inductive argument. A Sasquatch defender can always rejoin that Bigfoot is reclusive, and might just be hiding in that next stand of trees. You can"t prove he"s not! (until the search of that tree stand comes up empty too). The problem here isn"t that inductive arguments won"t give us certainty about negative claims (like the nonexistence of Bigfoot), but that inductive arguments won"t give us certainty about anything at all, positive or negative. All observed swans are white, therefore all swans are white looked like a pretty good inductive argument until black swans were discovered in Australia.

The very nature of an inductive argument is to make a conclusion probable, but not certain, given the truth of the premises. That just what an inductive argument is. We"d better not dismiss induction because we"re not getting certainty out of it, though. Why do you think that the sun will rise tomorrow? Not because of observation (you can"t observe the future!), but because that"s what it has always done in the past. Why do you think that if you turn on the kitchen tap that water will come out instead of chocolate? Why do you think you"ll find your house where you last left it? Why do you think lunch will be nourishing instead of deadly? Again, because that"s the way things have always been in the past. In other words, we use inferences " induction " from past experiences in every aspect of our lives. As Bertrand Russell pointed out, the chicken who expects to be fed when he sees the farmer approaching, since that is what had always happened in the past, is in for a big surprise when instead of receiving dinner, he becomes dinner. But if the chicken had rejected inductive reasoning altogether, then every appearance of the farmer would be a surprise.

So why is it that people insist that you can"t prove a negative? I think it is the result of two things. (1) an acknowledgement that induction is not bulletproof, airtight, and infallible, and (2) a desperate desire to keep believing whatever one believes, even if all the evidence is against it.

http://departments.bloomu.edu...

I think we would be better suited in referring to actual logic rather than a 'belief' because 'nonexistence' has been semantically substituted for 'negative'. Silliness.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 3:12:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 3:02:40 PM, Beastt wrote:
I find it incredibly sad that this is necessary, but it obviously is. Theists commonly insist that atheists should present evidence for the non-existence of God. And yet, theists don't seem to realize that "evidence of non-existence" is a contradiction.

- Evidence speaks to existence.

- A lack of evidence speaks to non-existence.

It's that simple. And yet, still we have theists screaming that we're evading our "burden of proof" in disbelieving that for which there is no evidence. Evidence requires a demonstrable link between the evidence, and that for which it serves as evidence.

If you can't demonstrate that link, then you don't have evidence. This is the problem when theists claim that the existence of Earth, life and the universe are "evidence" for God. There is no demonstrable link. Their link is asserted, and only asserted. It's no different than asserting that Bugs Bunny created carrots, therefore carrots are evidence of Bugs Bunny.

If you can demonstrate a link, then you have evidence. But you can NEVER demonstrate a link to that which has never existed. In order to have a link, the object to be evidenced has to exist.

Disagree? Then think it through. What does evidence for the non-existence of traffic look like? It looks exactly like the lack of evidence for cross traffic. And that's what we look for when waiting at a stop sign.

How many theists live in constant fear of the pride of lions in their living room? They have no evidence that the lions don't exist. But they do have a lack of evidence that they do exist - the same thing atheists (and everyone else) has for God.

So understand that there is no such thing as "evidence of non-existence". Non-existence is always supported by a lack of evidence, never by the presence of evidence. Only existence is supported by evidence.

Anyone having any difficulty grasping this common and simple set of rules is openly welcomed to discuss.

Response: It's still an illogical argument. If you state that something does not exist, and this is supported by a lack of evidence, then it is the burden of proof on you to provide the alleged lack of evidence. It's that simple.

If you concluded something does not exist, yet have nothing to support the claim, then the claim is invalid.
THE_OPINIONATOR
Posts: 575
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 3:18:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 3:02:40 PM, Beastt wrote:
I find it incredibly sad that this is necessary, but it obviously is. Theists commonly insist that atheists should present evidence for the non-existence of God. And yet, theists don't seem to realize that "evidence of non-existence" is a contradiction.

- Evidence speaks to existence.

- A lack of evidence speaks to non-existence.

It's that simple. And yet, still we have theists screaming that we're evading our "burden of proof" in disbelieving that for which there is no evidence. Evidence requires a demonstrable link between the evidence, and that for which it serves as evidence.

If you can't demonstrate that link, then you don't have evidence. This is the problem when theists claim that the existence of Earth, life and the universe are "evidence" for God. There is no demonstrable link. Their link is asserted, and only asserted. It's no different than asserting that Bugs Bunny created carrots, therefore carrots are evidence of Bugs Bunny.

If you can demonstrate a link, then you have evidence. But you can NEVER demonstrate a link to that which has never existed. In order to have a link, the object to be evidenced has to exist.

Disagree? Then think it through. What does evidence for the non-existence of traffic look like? It looks exactly like the lack of evidence for cross traffic. And that's what we look for when waiting at a stop sign.

How many theists live in constant fear of the pride of lions in their living room? They have no evidence that the lions don't exist. But they do have a lack of evidence that they do exist - the same thing atheists (and everyone else) has for God.

So understand that there is no such thing as "evidence of non-existence". Non-existence is always supported by a lack of evidence, never by the presence of evidence. Only existence is supported by evidence.

Anyone having any difficulty grasping this common and simple set of rules is openly welcomed to discuss.

I think this thread has backfired on you. Proof of lack of evidence and presenting it is evidence. So you basically ranted for no reason.
My Blog: Life Through The Eyes of a Christian

http://bloggingforjchrist.blogspot.com...

Life Through The Eyes of a Christian Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 3:31:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 3:07:49 PM, neutral wrote:
At 7/2/2014 3:02:40 PM, Beastt wrote:
I find it incredibly sad that this is necessary, but it obviously is. Theists commonly insist that atheists should present evidence for the non-existence of God. And yet, theists don't seem to realize that "evidence of non-existence" is a contradiction.

- Evidence speaks to existence.

- A lack of evidence speaks to non-existence.

It's that simple. And yet, still we have theists screaming that we're evading our "burden of proof" in disbelieving that for which there is no evidence. Evidence requires a demonstrable link between the evidence, and that for which it serves as evidence.

If you can't demonstrate that link, then you don't have evidence. This is the problem when theists claim that the existence of Earth, life and the universe are "evidence" for God. There is no demonstrable link. Their link is asserted, and only asserted. It's no different than asserting that Bugs Bunny created carrots, therefore carrots are evidence of Bugs Bunny.

If you can demonstrate a link, then you have evidence. But you can NEVER demonstrate a link to that which has never existed. In order to have a link, the object to be evidenced has to exist.

Disagree? Then think it through. What does evidence for the non-existence of traffic look like? It looks exactly like the lack of evidence for cross traffic. And that's what we look for when waiting at a stop sign.

How many theists live in constant fear of the pride of lions in their living room? They have no evidence that the lions don't exist. But they do have a lack of evidence that they do exist - the same thing atheists (and everyone else) has for God.

So understand that there is no such thing as "evidence of non-existence". Non-existence is always supported by a lack of evidence, never by the presence of evidence. Only existence is supported by evidence.

Anyone having any difficulty grasping this common and simple set of rules is openly welcomed to discuss.

This may be the most patronizing and factually wrong thread ever started.

There is something called a professional logician.

http://departments.bloomu.edu...

Proving a negative is what is really being argued here, despite the semantic BS. And what do professional logicians state?

Can you construct a valid deductive argument with all true premises that yields the conclusion that there are no unicorns? Sure. Here"s one, using the valid inference procedure of modus tollens:

1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence in the fossil record.
2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record.
3. Therefore, unicorns never existed.

WHOA! My, my, my... but you ARE the stupid one. Do you know what the logician is pointing out? He's pointing out a LACK OF EVIDENCE for unicorns in the fossil record. And what did I say supports non existence? A lack of evidence. Say "DUH!" Say it loudly. Now go sit in the corner with your pointy hat and your "Duh" sign. You've earned it.

There is a LACK OF EVIDENCE for unicorns (in the fossil record and everywhere else), therefore we conclude that unicorns never existed, and don't exist.

There is a LACK OF EVIDENCE for God (in the fossil record and everywhere else), therefore we conclude that God never existed, and doesn't exist.

I'm curious; how is it that you don't look at your own stupidity, and just curl up and die? You've attempted to refute my argument, by presenting that very argument, yet you're claiming the argument is "may be the most patronizing and factually wrong thread ever started".

And then you produce paragraphs of drivel under the mistaken belief that you have refuted my stance, while in reality, you've done nothing but demonstrate the accuracy of my stance.

Non-existence is supported by a lack of evidence. A lack of evidence for unicorns, speaks to the non-existence of unicorns.
AND... a lack of evidence for God, speaks to the non-existence of God.

Figure that part out before trying to submit a thesis to further emphasize the fact that you just shot yourself in the foot.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 3:40:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 3:12:44 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/2/2014 3:02:40 PM, Beastt wrote:
I find it incredibly sad that this is necessary, but it obviously is. Theists commonly insist that atheists should present evidence for the non-existence of God. And yet, theists don't seem to realize that "evidence of non-existence" is a contradiction.

- Evidence speaks to existence.

- A lack of evidence speaks to non-existence.

It's that simple. And yet, still we have theists screaming that we're evading our "burden of proof" in disbelieving that for which there is no evidence. Evidence requires a demonstrable link between the evidence, and that for which it serves as evidence.

If you can't demonstrate that link, then you don't have evidence. This is the problem when theists claim that the existence of Earth, life and the universe are "evidence" for God. There is no demonstrable link. Their link is asserted, and only asserted. It's no different than asserting that Bugs Bunny created carrots, therefore carrots are evidence of Bugs Bunny.

If you can demonstrate a link, then you have evidence. But you can NEVER demonstrate a link to that which has never existed. In order to have a link, the object to be evidenced has to exist.

Disagree? Then think it through. What does evidence for the non-existence of traffic look like? It looks exactly like the lack of evidence for cross traffic. And that's what we look for when waiting at a stop sign.

How many theists live in constant fear of the pride of lions in their living room? They have no evidence that the lions don't exist. But they do have a lack of evidence that they do exist - the same thing atheists (and everyone else) has for God.

So understand that there is no such thing as "evidence of non-existence". Non-existence is always supported by a lack of evidence, never by the presence of evidence. Only existence is supported by evidence.

Anyone having any difficulty grasping this common and simple set of rules is openly welcomed to discuss.

Response: It's still an illogical argument. If you state that something does not exist, and this is supported by a lack of evidence, then it is the burden of proof on you to provide the alleged lack of evidence. It's that simple.

If you concluded something does not exist, yet have nothing to support the claim, then the claim is invalid.

ROFL! You guys should form a comedy act. You could call it, "Creation Comedy". I hope you realize that no one could do a better satire to show the stupidity of creationism (and theism), than you have just provided. But let's play along.

Let me take the "lack of evidence" and put it in a box. On the outside of the box I'll write your address and I'll pay a parcel delivery service to transport the box to you. When you receive the box, you carefully cut through the outer paper and then open the box.

What's inside? Nothing! Because that's exactly what you asked me to send you - NOTHING! Why? Because that's what a "lack of evidence" looks like, you dork!

I hope every theist on the board stops by to see the kind of stupidity required to believe that atheists need to have evidence for the non-existence of God. And while it's off topic, we can show that God is a contradiction. So we have the evidential argument on our side, and the logical argument in our side. The logical argument has many forms, but just as a taste...

- God is said to be perfect, yet is disappointed by his own creation. (Contradiction!)

- God always does the right thing, but answers prayers. (Can he do the wrong thing in answer to a prayer? If not, then it was the right thing and he would have done it anyway. If he does the wrong thing in answer to a prayer, then God doesn't always do the best thing.)

My stupidity is demonstrated in coming to this debate forum hoping to find an intelligent debate from a theist. Theism has no intelligent debate to support it. So that's my fault.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 3:45:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 3:18:46 PM, THE_OPINIONATOR wrote:
At 7/2/2014 3:02:40 PM, Beastt wrote:
I find it incredibly sad that this is necessary, but it obviously is. Theists commonly insist that atheists should present evidence for the non-existence of God. And yet, theists don't seem to realize that "evidence of non-existence" is a contradiction.

- Evidence speaks to existence.

- A lack of evidence speaks to non-existence.

It's that simple. And yet, still we have theists screaming that we're evading our "burden of proof" in disbelieving that for which there is no evidence. Evidence requires a demonstrable link between the evidence, and that for which it serves as evidence.

If you can't demonstrate that link, then you don't have evidence. This is the problem when theists claim that the existence of Earth, life and the universe are "evidence" for God. There is no demonstrable link. Their link is asserted, and only asserted. It's no different than asserting that Bugs Bunny created carrots, therefore carrots are evidence of Bugs Bunny.

If you can demonstrate a link, then you have evidence. But you can NEVER demonstrate a link to that which has never existed. In order to have a link, the object to be evidenced has to exist.

Disagree? Then think it through. What does evidence for the non-existence of traffic look like? It looks exactly like the lack of evidence for cross traffic. And that's what we look for when waiting at a stop sign.

How many theists live in constant fear of the pride of lions in their living room? They have no evidence that the lions don't exist. But they do have a lack of evidence that they do exist - the same thing atheists (and everyone else) has for God.

So understand that there is no such thing as "evidence of non-existence". Non-existence is always supported by a lack of evidence, never by the presence of evidence. Only existence is supported by evidence.

Anyone having any difficulty grasping this common and simple set of rules is openly welcomed to discuss.

I think this thread has backfired on you. Proof of lack of evidence and presenting it is evidence. So you basically ranted for no reason.

Think of it more as teaching, than ranting. And it hasn't backfired on me at all. Your comment, however, has backfired on you. "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence".

So while one can say that a lack of evidence is evidence to support an argument, it's insane, ridiculous and idiotic to suggest that anyone show you a "lack of evidence". A lack of evidence isn't something one can show you. It's the distinct lack of something one can show you.

If you want to understand this, simply show me your lack of evidence for fairies. I'm putting this on your terms. Think REALLY hard!
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Fatihah
Posts: 7,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 3:46:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 3:40:30 PM, Beastt wrote:
ROFL! You guys should form a comedy act. You could call it, "Creation Comedy". I hope you realize that no one could do a better satire to show the stupidity of creationism (and theism), than you have just provided. But let's play along.

Let me take the "lack of evidence" and put it in a box. On the outside of the box I'll write your address and I'll pay a parcel delivery service to transport the box to you. When you receive the box, you carefully cut through the outer paper and then open the box.

What's inside? Nothing! Because that's exactly what you asked me to send you - NOTHING! Why? Because that's what a "lack of evidence" looks like, you dork!

I hope every theist on the board stops by to see the kind of stupidity required to believe that atheists need to have evidence for the non-existence of God. And while it's off topic, we can show that God is a contradiction. So we have the evidential argument on our side, and the logical argument in our side. The logical argument has many forms, but just as a taste...

- God is said to be perfect, yet is disappointed by his own creation. (Contradiction!)

- God always does the right thing, but answers prayers. (Can he do the wrong thing in answer to a prayer? If not, then it was the right thing and he would have done it anyway. If he does the wrong thing in answer to a prayer, then God doesn't always do the best thing.)

My stupidity is demonstrated in coming to this debate forum hoping to find an intelligent debate from a theist. Theism has no intelligent debate to support it. So that's my fault.

Response: Now let's analyze the stupidity of this deluded atheist. Your stupidity just made you say that atheism is based on "a lack of evidence" and a lack of evidence is "nothing". So guess what deluded one? You just admitted what theists have been trying to tell you all along. That atheism and the logic behind it is based on "NOTHING".

Another deluded atheist confirms just how illogical and foolish atheism is. Thanks for the confirmation.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 4:09:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 3:46:24 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/2/2014 3:40:30 PM, Beastt wrote:
ROFL! You guys should form a comedy act. You could call it, "Creation Comedy". I hope you realize that no one could do a better satire to show the stupidity of creationism (and theism), than you have just provided. But let's play along.

Let me take the "lack of evidence" and put it in a box. On the outside of the box I'll write your address and I'll pay a parcel delivery service to transport the box to you. When you receive the box, you carefully cut through the outer paper and then open the box.

What's inside? Nothing! Because that's exactly what you asked me to send you - NOTHING! Why? Because that's what a "lack of evidence" looks like, you dork!

I hope every theist on the board stops by to see the kind of stupidity required to believe that atheists need to have evidence for the non-existence of God. And while it's off topic, we can show that God is a contradiction. So we have the evidential argument on our side, and the logical argument in our side. The logical argument has many forms, but just as a taste...

- God is said to be perfect, yet is disappointed by his own creation. (Contradiction!)

- God always does the right thing, but answers prayers. (Can he do the wrong thing in answer to a prayer? If not, then it was the right thing and he would have done it anyway. If he does the wrong thing in answer to a prayer, then God doesn't always do the best thing.)

My stupidity is demonstrated in coming to this debate forum hoping to find an intelligent debate from a theist. Theism has no intelligent debate to support it. So that's my fault.

Response: Now let's analyze the stupidity of this deluded atheist. Your stupidity just made you say that atheism is based on "a lack of evidence" and a lack of evidence is "nothing". So guess what deluded one? You just admitted what theists have been trying to tell you all along. That atheism and the logic behind it is based on "NOTHING".

Another deluded atheist confirms just how illogical and foolish atheism is. Thanks for the confirmation.

Allow me to point out that when you look for a parking space for your car, you're looking for the absence of other cars. In other words - nothing! So is it stupid to choose a place to park your car on the existence of nothing? Or is it more intelligent to try to park your car where another car is already parked? Go sit with Neutral. I'll get you a sparkly pretty little "Duh" sign just like his.

The observance of nothing can be very informative.

YOU: "What's in the drawer?"
ME: "Nothing."

You can check for yourself and you use this method multiple times each day. Do you now know more about the contents of the drawer? You know there aren't any fairies in there, right? And how do you know that? On the basis of the nothing which does exist.

You know it doesn't contain your car keys, your cup of coffee, a cell phone, three wise men or a talking snake. And if you disbelieve me, you can look for yourself. And what will the nothing in the drawer tell you? It will tell you that I was both honest, and correct.

Is there a rattlesnake in your pocket? If you say "no", how do you know?

Think very carefully. (It's the same basis for my belief that God doesn't exist).
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
THE_OPINIONATOR
Posts: 575
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 4:14:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 3:45:03 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/2/2014 3:18:46 PM, THE_OPINIONATOR wrote:
At 7/2/2014 3:02:40 PM, Beastt wrote:
I find it incredibly sad that this is necessary, but it obviously is. Theists commonly insist that atheists should present evidence for the non-existence of God. And yet, theists don't seem to realize that "evidence of non-existence" is a contradiction.

- Evidence speaks to existence.

- A lack of evidence speaks to non-existence.

It's that simple. And yet, still we have theists screaming that we're evading our "burden of proof" in disbelieving that for which there is no evidence. Evidence requires a demonstrable link between the evidence, and that for which it serves as evidence.

If you can't demonstrate that link, then you don't have evidence. This is the problem when theists claim that the existence of Earth, life and the universe are "evidence" for God. There is no demonstrable link. Their link is asserted, and only asserted. It's no different than asserting that Bugs Bunny created carrots, therefore carrots are evidence of Bugs Bunny.

If you can demonstrate a link, then you have evidence. But you can NEVER demonstrate a link to that which has never existed. In order to have a link, the object to be evidenced has to exist.

Disagree? Then think it through. What does evidence for the non-existence of traffic look like? It looks exactly like the lack of evidence for cross traffic. And that's what we look for when waiting at a stop sign.

How many theists live in constant fear of the pride of lions in their living room? They have no evidence that the lions don't exist. But they do have a lack of evidence that they do exist - the same thing atheists (and everyone else) has for God.

So understand that there is no such thing as "evidence of non-existence". Non-existence is always supported by a lack of evidence, never by the presence of evidence. Only existence is supported by evidence.

Anyone having any difficulty grasping this common and simple set of rules is openly welcomed to discuss.

I think this thread has backfired on you. Proof of lack of evidence and presenting it is evidence. So you basically ranted for no reason.

Think of it more as teaching, than ranting. And it hasn't backfired on me at all. Your comment, however, has backfired on you. "Absence of evidence is evidence of absence".

So while one can say that a lack of evidence is evidence to support an argument, it's insane, ridiculous and idiotic to suggest that anyone show you a "lack of evidence". A lack of evidence isn't something one can show you. It's the distinct lack of something one can show you.

If you want to understand this, simply show me your lack of evidence for fairies. I'm putting this on your terms. Think REALLY hard!

When you say that something is false due to no evidence, that is stupidity. Atheists (not all of them) are simply out to see how angry they can get over a god they think does not exist with the belief nothing created something...yeah that is impossible. Just like trying to prove something does not exist by simply saying there is no evidence.
My Blog: Life Through The Eyes of a Christian

http://bloggingforjchrist.blogspot.com...

Life Through The Eyes of a Christian Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 4:16:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 4:09:43 PM, Beastt wrote:

Allow me to point out that when you look for a parking space for your car, you're looking for the absence of other cars. In other words - nothing! So is it stupid to choose a place to park your car on the existence of nothing? Or is it more intelligent to try to park your car where another car is already parked? Go sit with Neutral. I'll get you a sparkly pretty little "Duh" sign just like his.

The observance of nothing can be very informative.

YOU: "What's in the drawer?"
ME: "Nothing."

You can check for yourself and you use this method multiple times each day. Do you now know more about the contents of the drawer? You know there aren't any fairies in there, right? And how do you know that? On the basis of the nothing which does exist.

You know it doesn't contain your car keys, your cup of coffee, a cell phone, three wise men or a talking snake. And if you disbelieve me, you can look for yourself. And what will the nothing in the drawer tell you? It will tell you that I was both honest, and correct.

Is there a rattlesnake in your pocket? If you say "no", how do you know?

Think very carefully. (It's the same basis for my belief that God doesn't exist).

Response: You said atheism is based on nothing. So your rambling is pointless. For we are in perfect agreement. Atheism is based on NOTHING.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 4:26:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 3:02:40 PM, Beastt wrote:
I find it incredibly sad that this is necessary, but it obviously is. Theists commonly insist that atheists should present evidence for the non-existence of God. And yet, theists don't seem to realize that "evidence of non-existence" is a contradiction.

- Evidence speaks to existence.

- A lack of evidence speaks to non-existence.

"speaks to" you mean suggests. Suggests is not confirmation. Radio waves, X waves, Dinosaurs, Planets past Jupiter, Other solar systems, Platypus, Orangutangs, Quasars, Black Holes, Deep Sea Fish, Frill Sharks, Giant Squid, etc.. All Existed before there was evidence. This is why a lack of evidence does not confirm non-existence.

Through a negative proof or negative argument you can reason for something being nonexistent. IE.. Searched an entire jungle for the corporeal remnants of orangutangs and found none. The weight of the argument is upon the extensiveness of the search and method of searching used.

You can not even estimate reasonably that there is not any floating bodiless brain somewhere in the universe. http://en.wikipedia.org... This would require a knowledge of all of the universe and because such a search certainly has not been done, and such methods to find a brain not deployed. The questions remains unanswered. Neither True nor False.


It's that simple. And yet, still we have theists screaming that we're evading our "burden of proof" in disbelieving that for which there is no evidence. Evidence requires a demonstrable link between the evidence, and that for which it serves as evidence.

If you can't demonstrate that link, then you don't have evidence. This is the problem when theists claim that the existence of Earth, life and the universe are "evidence" for God. There is no demonstrable link. Their link is asserted, and only asserted. It's no different than asserting that Bugs Bunny created carrots, therefore carrots are evidence of Bugs Bunny.

This is your take. My take is that Life can not happen with out an intelligence to aid in it's construction. This fact do to the very real properties of the chemicals and arrangements involved. With out making any more assumptions about this intelligence, it is deduced that it is highly advanced, powerful.

The demonstrable link is that these properties have to be present in a designer and the choice between it being God or another alien race is that God is 1000's of less assumptions. So evidence requires A, B, C to emerge. God has traits A, B, C. Could it be something God like or something else that has traits A, B, and C. Sure can, but that would be assuming more than needed. AKA Occam's Razor comes into play.


If you can demonstrate a link, then you have evidence. But you can NEVER demonstrate a link to that which has never existed. In order to have a link, the object to be evidenced has to exist.

It's Atheist asking for a specific kind of evidence. A form of evidence that is just not as forthcoming when it comes a universal person-hood with it's own will. Why don't you be totally ridiculous and ask for evidence of God's poop?


Disagree? Then think it through. What does evidence for the non-existence of traffic look like? It looks exactly like the lack of evidence for cross traffic. And that's what we look for when waiting at a stop sign.

This is not scientific evidence for no cross traffic. And accidents happen where someone looks both ways, sees no traffic and they pull forward into oncoming cross traffic. Again, the validity of the claim "cross traffic does not exist" is reliant on the TRUST put into the search for said cross traffic. If you were driving in a car with someone and you saw they only looked behind or only left for cross traffic, Most people would not want the driver to proceed forward.


How many theists live in constant fear of the pride of lions in their living room? They have no evidence that the lions don't exist. But they do have a lack of evidence that they do exist - the same thing atheists (and everyone else) has for God.

Lions are giant yellow cats. I have searched my living room and found no such beast present. If there were Lions in my living room, my visual search of my living room would certainly discover them there.

Did you do a universal search for God's poop and not found it? No theist is going to argue you did not find evidence. Your search was so short sighted.


So understand that there is no such thing as "evidence of non-existence". Non-existence is always supported by a lack of evidence, never by the presence of evidence. Only existence is supported by evidence.

Anyone having any difficulty grasping this common and simple set of rules is openly welcomed to discuss.

Really your argument should go as Victor Stenger put it.

P1. Probably, if God were to exist, then there would be good objective evidence for his existence.
P2. But there is no good objective evidence for His existence.
C1. Therefore, probably, God does not exist.

The question now becomes what is "Objective Evidence"?

Objective means: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Evidence means: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

I think few people hold to a completely "Blind-Faith" believe in God. As far as Objective goes this is a very simple and easy thing to understand when you CAN see water from a water hose filling a bucket up. Objectively no one would argue the cause (water hose) is making the effect (bucket of water)

Yet this measure drastically breaks down when applied to universal things.

For one the observation, even if totally separate from feelings, can still be "True" for each observer but different from each other due to special relativity. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Objective Evidence for things like black holes, are really peer review. That is what objective evidence in science is. Peer reviewed. It is consensus of like minded people with similar educations, back grounds, ideologies.

More so Beastt is just showing his mix match of things he calls logic. There is no objective evidence in Logic. Closest thing to that would be a deductive argument. Except a deductive argument is 100% certain. Confusing "Logic" with pieces and parts from "Logical Systems". Logical systems are internally coherent. Once you remove a part from this system then it is no long coherent with other differing parts. Like the way he mix-matches Science-Law-Philosophy and claims it is "Logical".

But it is "Obviously" a selective bias because he rejects abductive reasoning for God, but not when abductive reasoning work in his examples of "lack of evidence".

There was volumes of "Objective Evidence" supporting Newton's theory of Gravity. And yet it is totally different from the way Einstein handled gravity. Completely opposite to the point that there is no steady bridge between the classical and the relative.

"Shifting Burden of Proof" is when you or another Atheist say God is imaginary, and then when challenged to support that claim, change it to "can't prove a negative"

But your own examples of "lack of evidence" are negative proofs to support non-existence of something. So you, and every Atheist, really does have a way to support their claims instead of running away like kids ringing a doorbell and taking off.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 4:33:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 3:02:40 PM, Beastt wrote:
I find it incredibly sad that this is necessary, but it obviously is. Theists commonly insist that atheists should present evidence for the non-existence of God. And yet, theists don't seem to realize that "evidence of non-existence" is a contradiction.

- Evidence speaks to existence.

- A lack of evidence speaks to non-existence.

If you can demonstrate a link, then you have evidence. But you can NEVER demonstrate a link to that which has never existed. In order to have a link, the object to be evidenced has to exist.

So understand that there is no such thing as "evidence of non-existence". Non-existence is always supported by a lack of evidence, never by the presence of evidence. Only existence is supported by evidence.

Disagree?

As a fellow atheist, yes, I disagree. Absence of evidence for X is evidence for not-X if and only if you would expect to find evidence for X if X were true.

Also, what popculturepooka said.
THE_OPINIONATOR
Posts: 575
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 4:33:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 4:26:09 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/2/2014 3:02:40 PM, Beastt wrote:
I find it incredibly sad that this is necessary, but it obviously is. Theists commonly insist that atheists should present evidence for the non-existence of God. And yet, theists don't seem to realize that "evidence of non-existence" is a contradiction.

- Evidence speaks to existence.

- A lack of evidence speaks to non-existence.

"speaks to" you mean suggests. Suggests is not confirmation. Radio waves, X waves, Dinosaurs, Planets past Jupiter, Other solar systems, Platypus, Orangutangs, Quasars, Black Holes, Deep Sea Fish, Frill Sharks, Giant Squid, etc.. All Existed before there was evidence. This is why a lack of evidence does not confirm non-existence.

Through a negative proof or negative argument you can reason for something being nonexistent. IE.. Searched an entire jungle for the corporeal remnants of orangutangs and found none. The weight of the argument is upon the extensiveness of the search and method of searching used.

You can not even estimate reasonably that there is not any floating bodiless brain somewhere in the universe. http://en.wikipedia.org... This would require a knowledge of all of the universe and because such a search certainly has not been done, and such methods to find a brain not deployed. The questions remains unanswered. Neither True nor False.


It's that simple. And yet, still we have theists screaming that we're evading our "burden of proof" in disbelieving that for which there is no evidence. Evidence requires a demonstrable link between the evidence, and that for which it serves as evidence.

If you can't demonstrate that link, then you don't have evidence. This is the problem when theists claim that the existence of Earth, life and the universe are "evidence" for God. There is no demonstrable link. Their link is asserted, and only asserted. It's no different than asserting that Bugs Bunny created carrots, therefore carrots are evidence of Bugs Bunny.

This is your take. My take is that Life can not happen with out an intelligence to aid in it's construction. This fact do to the very real properties of the chemicals and arrangements involved. With out making any more assumptions about this intelligence, it is deduced that it is highly advanced, powerful.

The demonstrable link is that these properties have to be present in a designer and the choice between it being God or another alien race is that God is 1000's of less assumptions. So evidence requires A, B, C to emerge. God has traits A, B, C. Could it be something God like or something else that has traits A, B, and C. Sure can, but that would be assuming more than needed. AKA Occam's Razor comes into play.



If you can demonstrate a link, then you have evidence. But you can NEVER demonstrate a link to that which has never existed. In order to have a link, the object to be evidenced has to exist.

It's Atheist asking for a specific kind of evidence. A form of evidence that is just not as forthcoming when it comes a universal person-hood with it's own will. Why don't you be totally ridiculous and ask for evidence of God's poop?


Disagree? Then think it through. What does evidence for the non-existence of traffic look like? It looks exactly like the lack of evidence for cross traffic. And that's what we look for when waiting at a stop sign.

This is not scientific evidence for no cross traffic. And accidents happen where someone looks both ways, sees no traffic and they pull forward into oncoming cross traffic. Again, the validity of the claim "cross traffic does not exist" is reliant on the TRUST put into the search for said cross traffic. If you were driving in a car with someone and you saw they only looked behind or only left for cross traffic, Most people would not want the driver to proceed forward.


How many theists live in constant fear of the pride of lions in their living room? They have no evidence that the lions don't exist. But they do have a lack of evidence that they do exist - the same thing atheists (and everyone else) has for God.

Lions are giant yellow cats. I have searched my living room and found no such beast present. If there were Lions in my living room, my visual search of my living room would certainly discover them there.

Did you do a universal search for God's poop and not found it? No theist is going to argue you did not find evidence. Your search was so short sighted.


So understand that there is no such thing as "evidence of non-existence". Non-existence is always supported by a lack of evidence, never by the presence of evidence. Only existence is supported by evidence.

Anyone having any difficulty grasping this common and simple set of rules is openly welcomed to discuss.

Really your argument should go as Victor Stenger put it.

P1. Probably, if God were to exist, then there would be good objective evidence for his existence.
P2. But there is no good objective evidence for His existence.
C1. Therefore, probably, God does not exist.

The question now becomes what is "Objective Evidence"?

Objective means: not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Evidence means: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

I think few people hold to a completely "Blind-Faith" believe in God. As far as Objective goes this is a very simple and easy thing to understand when you CAN see water from a water hose filling a bucket up. Objectively no one would argue the cause (water hose) is making the effect (bucket of water)

Yet this measure drastically breaks down when applied to universal things.

For one the observation, even if totally separate from feelings, can still be "True" for each observer but different from each other due to special relativity. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Objective Evidence for things like black holes, are really peer review. That is what objective evidence in science is. Peer reviewed. It is consensus of like minded people with similar educations, back grounds, ideologies.

More so Beastt is just showing his mix match of things he calls logic. There is no objective evidence in Logic. Closest thing to that would be a deductive argument. Except a deductive argument is 100% certain. Confusing "Logic" with pieces and parts from "Logical Systems". Logical systems are internally coherent. Once you remove a part from this system then it is no long coherent with other differing parts. Like the way he mix-matches Science-Law-Philosophy and claims it is "Logical".

But it is "Obviously" a selective bias because he rejects abductive reasoning for God, but not when abductive reasoning work in his examples of "lack of evidence".

There was volumes of "Objective Evidence" supporting Newton's theory of Gravity. And yet it is totally different from the way Einstein handled gravity. Completely opposite to the point that there is no steady bridge between the classical and the relative.

"Shifting Burden of Proof" is when you or another Atheist say God is imaginary, and then when challenged to support that claim, change it to "can't prove a negative"

But your own examples of "lack of evidence" are negative proofs to support non-existence of something. So you, and every Atheist, really does have a way to support their claims instead of running away like kids ringing a doorbell and taking off.

You deserve either a hug or a cookie.
My Blog: Life Through The Eyes of a Christian

http://bloggingforjchrist.blogspot.com...

Life Through The Eyes of a Christian Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 4:46:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 4:14:12 PM, THE_OPINIONATOR wrote:

When you say that something is false due to no evidence, that is stupidity.
Oh really? Is there a pristine blue Rolls Royce sitting in your driveway, or your garage? Think about it, Silly.
If there isn't, how do you know there isn't? Perhaps it's because there's no evidence for a Rolls Royce in your driveway or garage?
Naw! That would be "stupidity"... according to you.

Atheists (not all of them) are simply out to see how angry they can get over a god they think does not exist
I couldn't care less about that. What makes me angry are theists who attempt to run my life, based on their infantile and ridiculous belief that God exists. And that frustration rises when you offer them a very clear and simple premise of logic, and they try to argue. Like your feeble and ridiculous claim that it's stupidity to say something is false because there is no evidence to support the claim that it's true.

If I claim there is a new sapphire-blue Rolls Royce sitting in front of your home and you insist that claim is false. Upon what evidence do you present that claim? (Duh! Feeling stupid, yet?)

with the belief nothing created something...yeah that is impossible.
I've never made any such statement, nor do I hold any such belief. That claim is nothing but a creationist's strawman argument. We're not claiming that nothing created anything (although it's not as impossible as your ignorance leads you to believe). My claim is that nothing has ever been created, PERIOD! And the laws of physics support that claim, while the claim that God created the universe violates some of the most fundamental laws of physics.

As an aside; next time you want to claim it's impossible, look up "virtual particles". That's what we get when we attempt to evacuate everything from a test chamber.

Just like trying to prove something does not exist by simply saying there is no evidence.
Ah, ah, ah... Where did I say "prove"? I'm not an idiot, and not being an idiot, I don't make claims about "proof" outside of math and alcohol. There's no such thing as "proof", silly. If I show a flat-Earther all of the evidence for a spherical Earth, and he still believes it's flat, did I "prove" anything to him? The concept of "proof" relies upon purely objective conclusions. People don't work that way. Most of us (sadly), operate on subjective conclusions. You subjectively accept the claim that God exists, even though there is no objective evidence for God. The flat-earther subjectively believes the Earth is flat, even though objective evidence shows it isn't. So I don't use the words "prove" or "proof", because they're based on fallacies. And you shouldn't use (or misuse), them either.

In every case of any confirmed existence, there is evidence for that existence. And when we find a lack of evidence for existence, logic dictates that we conclude non-existence. And the only instance where you insist upon deviating from that logic, is in the case of your God.

Does our solar system have two suns? Think about it? How would you know if it only has one?

Keep trying. You're going to lose. Guaranteed! The only question is; how deeply will you dig your grave of embarrassment, before you accept the truth?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 4:48:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 4:16:05 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/2/2014 4:09:43 PM, Beastt wrote:

Allow me to point out that when you look for a parking space for your car, you're looking for the absence of other cars. In other words - nothing! So is it stupid to choose a place to park your car on the existence of nothing? Or is it more intelligent to try to park your car where another car is already parked? Go sit with Neutral. I'll get you a sparkly pretty little "Duh" sign just like his.

The observance of nothing can be very informative.

YOU: "What's in the drawer?"
ME: "Nothing."

You can check for yourself and you use this method multiple times each day. Do you now know more about the contents of the drawer? You know there aren't any fairies in there, right? And how do you know that? On the basis of the nothing which does exist.

You know it doesn't contain your car keys, your cup of coffee, a cell phone, three wise men or a talking snake. And if you disbelieve me, you can look for yourself. And what will the nothing in the drawer tell you? It will tell you that I was both honest, and correct.

Is there a rattlesnake in your pocket? If you say "no", how do you know?

Think very carefully. (It's the same basis for my belief that God doesn't exist).

Response: You said atheism is based on nothing. So your rambling is pointless. For we are in perfect agreement. Atheism is based on NOTHING.

Nothing is information, silly. It's very vital and useful information. If you're crawling on your belly through a system of tunnels filled with snakes, you'd be very relieved to find nothing between you and an exit. Yet you act like nothing is of no use, and not informative. That's why you're a theist. You have almost zero critical thinking skills.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 4:50:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 4:24:25 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
You're bad at epistemology.

Don't hide like a snippy little mutt wanting to nip and heels and run. If you have a point you think you can make, step up and try to make it. Don't be such a coward.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Brad_Watson.Miami
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 4:51:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
GOD: the 'system as a whole'.

Now that we've established this as one of the definitions of GOD, can anybody argue that GOD exists using this definition?
GOD=7_4, 7/4=July 4th or 7 April 30 AD: Good(7__4) Friday(74) when Jesus(74=J10+E5+S19+U21+S19) was nailed on(74) the Cross(74=C3+R18+O15+S19+S19).

GOD=7_4 algorithm/code produces Earth's 7 continents & 4 seasons, 4 lunar phases of 7 days (~7.4 days) each, Venus .7 AU & Mercury .4 AU, etc.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 4:52:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 4:33:33 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 7/2/2014 3:02:40 PM, Beastt wrote:
I find it incredibly sad that this is necessary, but it obviously is. Theists commonly insist that atheists should present evidence for the non-existence of God. And yet, theists don't seem to realize that "evidence of non-existence" is a contradiction.

- Evidence speaks to existence.

- A lack of evidence speaks to non-existence.

If you can demonstrate a link, then you have evidence. But you can NEVER demonstrate a link to that which has never existed. In order to have a link, the object to be evidenced has to exist.

So understand that there is no such thing as "evidence of non-existence". Non-existence is always supported by a lack of evidence, never by the presence of evidence. Only existence is supported by evidence.

Disagree?

As a fellow atheist, yes, I disagree. Absence of evidence for X is evidence for not-X if and only if you would expect to find evidence for X if X were true.

Also, what popculturepooka said.
And when should one not expect to find evidence if X is true? You apparently didn't think that part through. In fact, I'll give you this to chew on; present anything ever confirmed to exist, for which there is no objective evidence. Oopsie!
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 4:53:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 4:51:03 PM, Brad_Watson.Miami wrote:
GOD: the 'system as a whole'.

Now that we've established this as one of the definitions of GOD, can anybody argue that GOD exists using this definition?

The problem is that the definition you've provided is that for the natural, physical universe, not for God. God is claimed to be outside of the universe as well as within, intelligent, temperamental and irrational (according to theists and the Bible & Qur'an).
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
THE_OPINIONATOR
Posts: 575
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 4:54:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 4:46:24 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/2/2014 4:14:12 PM, THE_OPINIONATOR wrote:

When you say that something is false due to no evidence, that is stupidity.
Oh really? Is there a pristine blue Rolls Royce sitting in your driveway, or your garage? Think about it, Silly.
If there isn't, how do you know there isn't? Perhaps it's because there's no evidence for a Rolls Royce in your driveway or garage?
Naw! That would be "stupidity"... according to you.

Atheists (not all of them) are simply out to see how angry they can get over a god they think does not exist
I couldn't care less about that. What makes me angry are theists who attempt to run my life, based on their infantile and ridiculous belief that God exists. And that frustration rises when you offer them a very clear and simple premise of logic, and they try to argue. Like your feeble and ridiculous claim that it's stupidity to say something is false because there is no evidence to support the claim that it's true.

If I claim there is a new sapphire-blue Rolls Royce sitting in front of your home and you insist that claim is false. Upon what evidence do you present that claim? (Duh! Feeling stupid, yet?)

with the belief nothing created something...yeah that is impossible.
I've never made any such statement, nor do I hold any such belief. That claim is nothing but a creationist's strawman argument. We're not claiming that nothing created anything (although it's not as impossible as your ignorance leads you to believe). My claim is that nothing has ever been created, PERIOD! And the laws of physics support that claim, while the claim that God created the universe violates some of the most fundamental laws of physics.

As an aside; next time you want to claim it's impossible, look up "virtual particles". That's what we get when we attempt to evacuate everything from a test chamber.

Just like trying to prove something does not exist by simply saying there is no evidence.
Ah, ah, ah... Where did I say "prove"? I'm not an idiot, and not being an idiot, I don't make claims about "proof" outside of math and alcohol. There's no such thing as "proof", silly. If I show a flat-Earther all of the evidence for a spherical Earth, and he still believes it's flat, did I "prove" anything to him? The concept of "proof" relies upon purely objective conclusions. People don't work that way. Most of us (sadly), operate on subjective conclusions. You subjectively accept the claim that God exists, even though there is no objective evidence for God. The flat-earther subjectively believes the Earth is flat, even though objective evidence shows it isn't. So I don't use the words "prove" or "proof", because they're based on fallacies. And you shouldn't use (or misuse), them either.

In every case of any confirmed existence, there is evidence for that existence. And when we find a lack of evidence for existence, logic dictates that we conclude non-existence. And the only instance where you insist upon deviating from that logic, is in the case of your God.

Does our solar system have two suns? Think about it? How would you know if it only has one?

Keep trying. You're going to lose. Guaranteed! The only question is; how deeply will you dig your grave of embarrassment, before you accept the truth?

Evidence to prove there isn't an expensive car in my drive way? Pictures. Pictures or it didn't happen. Of an empty driveway, I can also see who pulls in to said drive way.
My Blog: Life Through The Eyes of a Christian

http://bloggingforjchrist.blogspot.com...

Life Through The Eyes of a Christian Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com...
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 4:58:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 4:26:09 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 7/2/2014 3:02:40 PM, Beastt wrote:
I find it incredibly sad that this is necessary, but it obviously is. Theists commonly insist that atheists should present evidence for the non-existence of God. And yet, theists don't seem to realize that "evidence of non-existence" is a contradiction.

- Evidence speaks to existence.

- A lack of evidence speaks to non-existence.

"speaks to" you mean suggests. Suggests is not confirmation. Radio waves, X waves, Dinosaurs, Planets past Jupiter, Other solar systems, Platypus, Orangutangs, Quasars, Black Holes, Deep Sea Fish, Frill Sharks, Giant Squid, etc.. All Existed before there was evidence. This is why a lack of evidence does not confirm non-existence.
I'm just going to rain on this one part of your parade for the moment. Evidence for ALL of those things existed from the moment those things existed. You don't seem to understand the distinction between the existence of evidence, and the discovery of evidence.

And yet, you seem to find yourself worthy of trying to discuss intelligent topics with intelligent people. Is there evidence for a .357 cartridge on my desk? Your lack of knowledge concerning such evidence, doesn't allow you to answer the question. But that does nothing to alter whether or not the evidence exists.

But for God, evidence would have to exist, and be abundant. One cannot interact with the physical without leaving physical evidence of the interaction (that's a component part of what an interaction is).
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 5:02:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 4:54:13 PM, THE_OPINIONATOR wrote:

Evidence to prove there isn't an expensive car in my drive way? Pictures. Pictures or it didn't happen. Of an empty driveway, I can also see who pulls in to said drive way.

ROFL! I'm sorry. I usually try to contain my jovial reaction to mass stupidity. Pictures of what? Pictures showing the LACK OF EVIDENCE for a Rolls Royce? It's still about evidence vs a lack of evidence. And the lack of evidence speaks for non-existence.

By the way, photographs aren't the evidence they once were. Send me a photo of a Rolls Royce sitting in a driveway and I'll send back a copy of that picture without the Rolls Royce.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Fatihah
Posts: 7,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 5:03:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 4:48:55 PM, Beastt wrote:


Nothing is information, silly. It's very vital and useful information. If you're crawling on your belly through a system of tunnels filled with snakes, you'd be very relieved to find nothing between you and an exit. Yet you act like nothing is of no use, and not informative. That's why you're a theist. You have almost zero critical thinking skills.

Response: Nothing is not defined as "information" in any dictionary on the planet. You sound dumb. Nothing is "not anything". So by admitting that atheism is based on nothing, that means that there isn't anything logical about atheism. And you admitted it. Dummy.

Debunked as usual.
Brad_Watson.Miami
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 5:08:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 4:53:43 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/2/2014 4:51:03 PM, Brad_Watson.Miami wrote:
GOD: the 'system as a whole'.

Now that we've established this as one of the definitions of GOD, can anybody argue that GOD exists using this definition?

The problem is that the definition you've provided is that for the natural, physical universe, not for God. God is claimed to be outside of the universe as well as within, intelligent, temperamental and irrational (according to theists and the Bible & Qur'an).

Beastt,

Wrong, there's no problem with the definition of GOD: the 'system as a whole'; this is all inclusive. Outside of this universe is still contained in The Conglomerate of Nonparallel-Universes (multiverse) which is included in GOD: the 'system as a whole'.

The problem here - the truth - is that you are a smart atheist who is devoted to being an atheist. You are now forced with a new definition of GOD that is math and logic based, as well as based on the latest scientific discoveries, i.e. "this universe behaves as a quantum computer". The system as a whole is not a traditional religious definition of GOD, yet, I've shared this with many Jews, Christians, and Muslims and they are all cool with it. Atheists don't like it because if they don't agree with it, they are exposed as just being petty and stubborn.
GOD=7_4, 7/4=July 4th or 7 April 30 AD: Good(7__4) Friday(74) when Jesus(74=J10+E5+S19+U21+S19) was nailed on(74) the Cross(74=C3+R18+O15+S19+S19).

GOD=7_4 algorithm/code produces Earth's 7 continents & 4 seasons, 4 lunar phases of 7 days (~7.4 days) each, Venus .7 AU & Mercury .4 AU, etc.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 5:12:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 5:03:10 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/2/2014 4:48:55 PM, Beastt wrote:


Nothing is information, silly. It's very vital and useful information. If you're crawling on your belly through a system of tunnels filled with snakes, you'd be very relieved to find nothing between you and an exit. Yet you act like nothing is of no use, and not informative. That's why you're a theist. You have almost zero critical thinking skills.

Response: Nothing is not defined as "information" in any dictionary on the planet. You sound dumb. Nothing is "not anything". So by admitting that atheism is based on nothing, that means that there isn't anything logical about atheism. And you admitted it. Dummy.

Debunked as usual.

So can I put you on record as claiming that it would be intelligent to park your car where another car is already parked, and "dumb" to look for a spot where no car is parked?

I can then accept that you have spent your life cowering in a tiny corner of your house for fear of the pride of lions for which you have no evidence?

When you reach into your pocket and find no evidence of your keys, you continue to your car, get in, buckle up, and attempt to start your car anyway?

Look, get a better argument. This one has blown up in your face every time you've tried to present it. It only demonstrates your stupidity.

What are air-traffic controllers hoping for in front of every plane to which they assign an altitude? Are they hoping for evidence of other air traffic in the same corridor? Or are the looking for a lack of evidence for other air traffic?

When you change lanes on the freeway, do you look for a location devoid of evidence for other traffic, or one where you have evidence for other traffic.

It's one thing to say something stupid. It's quite another to keep repeating it. Get a new argument. I'm getting tired of refuting the same stupid argument, over and over. If you pressed the button to receive an elevator car, and when the doors opened, you found no evidence for a car in the shaft, should you accept that lack of evidence for a car and stay where you are, or should you step into the shaft?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 5:13:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 3:12:44 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 7/2/2014 3:02:40 PM, Beastt wrote:
I find it incredibly sad that this is necessary, but it obviously is. Theists commonly insist that atheists should present evidence for the non-existence of God. And yet, theists don't seem to realize that "evidence of non-existence" is a contradiction.

- Evidence speaks to existence.

- A lack of evidence speaks to non-existence.

It's that simple. And yet, still we have theists screaming that we're evading our "burden of proof" in disbelieving that for which there is no evidence. Evidence requires a demonstrable link between the evidence, and that for which it serves as evidence.

If you can't demonstrate that link, then you don't have evidence. This is the problem when theists claim that the existence of Earth, life and the universe are "evidence" for God. There is no demonstrable link. Their link is asserted, and only asserted. It's no different than asserting that Bugs Bunny created carrots, therefore carrots are evidence of Bugs Bunny.

If you can demonstrate a link, then you have evidence. But you can NEVER demonstrate a link to that which has never existed. In order to have a link, the object to be evidenced has to exist.

Disagree? Then think it through. What does evidence for the non-existence of traffic look like? It looks exactly like the lack of evidence for cross traffic. And that's what we look for when waiting at a stop sign.

How many theists live in constant fear of the pride of lions in their living room? They have no evidence that the lions don't exist. But they do have a lack of evidence that they do exist - the same thing atheists (and everyone else) has for God.

So understand that there is no such thing as "evidence of non-existence". Non-existence is always supported by a lack of evidence, never by the presence of evidence. Only existence is supported by evidence.

Anyone having any difficulty grasping this common and simple set of rules is openly welcomed to discuss.

Response: It's still an illogical argument. If you state that something does not exist, and this is supported by a lack of evidence, then it is the burden of proof on you to provide the alleged lack of evidence. It's that simple.

If you concluded something does not exist, yet have nothing to support the claim, then the claim is invalid.

Lack of evidence could otherwise be defined as "no objective evidence". So, if you demand lack of evidence be provided, then you already have it even before you make your demand for nothing.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 5:19:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 5:08:21 PM, Brad_Watson.Miami wrote:
At 7/2/2014 4:53:43 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 7/2/2014 4:51:03 PM, Brad_Watson.Miami wrote:
GOD: the 'system as a whole'.

Now that we've established this as one of the definitions of GOD, can anybody argue that GOD exists using this definition?

The problem is that the definition you've provided is that for the natural, physical universe, not for God. God is claimed to be outside of the universe as well as within, intelligent, temperamental and irrational (according to theists and the Bible & Qur'an).

Beastt,

Wrong, there's no problem with the definition of GOD: the 'system as a whole'; this is all inclusive. Outside of this universe is still contained in The Conglomerate of Nonparallel-Universes (multiverse) which is included in GOD: the 'system as a whole'.
There is absolutely no objective evidence for any "outside of this universe" or for any "parallel universes". What would make this universe separate from any theoretical parallel universe? The word "universe" is all-inclusive. It means, "everything that exists". And the universe demonstrates no evidence of any outside intelligent force.

You've fallen for a purely conjectural model, developed simply to support theories which demand conjecture to exist. If you look to quantum gravity, you'll find that no such conjectural model is necessary. What we find in quantum mechanics and relativity actually merge quite well under quantum gravity.


The problem here - the truth - is that you are a smart atheist who is devoted to being an atheist. You are now forced with a new definition of GOD that is math and logic based, as well as based on the latest scientific discoveries, i.e. "this universe behaves as a quantum computer".
Tell me everything you know about how a quantum computer operates. I think you're talking well above your own head.

The system as a whole is not a traditional religious definition of GOD, yet, I've shared this with many Jews, Christians, and Muslims and they are all cool with it. Atheists don't like it because if they don't agree with it, they are exposed as just being petty and stubborn.
It's not any kind of definition of God. It may be a proposed redefining of the universe, but that's all it is. We will likely always be faced with new information regarding how the universe operates. But until you can show that it thinks, makes decisions based on thought, and reacts in accordance with intelligence (which has never been shown), then it's still a natural universe and not any kind of "god".
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2014 5:21:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/2/2014 5:13:30 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
If you concluded something does not exist, yet have nothing to support the claim, then the claim is invalid.

Lack of evidence could otherwise be defined as "no objective evidence". So, if you demand lack of evidence be provided, then you already have it even before you make your demand for nothing.

Thank you. Well put, and I wish you better luck in drilling through that protective brain covering called "religious indoctrination" than I have had.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire