Total Posts:495|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Zero Evidence means what?

Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 12:44:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
God is like Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, ect..

The similarity between all these things is claimed to be Zero evidence. I will assume there is zero evidence for God. That Zero evidence means something does not exist.

Now I ask what is the logical argument that begins with Zero Evidence and logically implies or concludes "entity with zero evidence is non-existent"?
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 1:56:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 12:44:18 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
God is like Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, ect..

The similarity between all these things is claimed to be Zero evidence. I will assume there is zero evidence for God. That Zero evidence means something does not exist.

Now I ask what is the logical argument that begins with Zero Evidence and logically implies or concludes "entity with zero evidence is non-existent"?

That seems to be shifting the burden - how does zero evidence for an entity logically lead to 'it exists'?
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
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 2:10:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 1:56:19 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 12:44:18 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
God is like Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, ect..

The similarity between all these things is claimed to be Zero evidence. I will assume there is zero evidence for God. That Zero evidence means something does not exist.

Now I ask what is the logical argument that begins with Zero Evidence and logically implies or concludes "entity with zero evidence is non-existent"?

That seems to be shifting the burden - how does zero evidence for an entity logically lead to 'it exists'?

What I think he means, is, that if you claim there is zero evidence for something, it still does not evaluate to said something not existing. For instance if we claim we have Zero evidence of evolved alien life forms, it does not evaluate that evolved alien life forms do not exist.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 2:12:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 1:56:19 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 12:44:18 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
God is like Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, ect..

The similarity between all these things is claimed to be Zero evidence. I will assume there is zero evidence for God. That Zero evidence means something does not exist.

Now I ask what is the logical argument that begins with Zero Evidence and logically implies or concludes "entity with zero evidence is non-existent"?

That seems to be shifting the burden - how does zero evidence for an entity logically lead to 'it exists'?

I'm asking for a logical valid and sound argument that begins with "There is zero evidence of this entity" and concludes with "Therefore this entity does not exist."
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 2:14:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 2:10:56 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/12/2015 1:56:19 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 12:44:18 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
God is like Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, ect..

The similarity between all these things is claimed to be Zero evidence. I will assume there is zero evidence for God. That Zero evidence means something does not exist.

Now I ask what is the logical argument that begins with Zero Evidence and logically implies or concludes "entity with zero evidence is non-existent"?

That seems to be shifting the burden - how does zero evidence for an entity logically lead to 'it exists'?

What I think he means, is, that if you claim there is zero evidence for something, it still does not evaluate to said something not existing. For instance if we claim we have Zero evidence of evolved alien life forms, it does not evaluate that evolved alien life forms do not exist.

No, of course, but claiming something with zero evidence exists is what gets us into this discussion to begin with which leads us back to my question: how does zero evidence for an entity logically lead to 'it exists'?
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
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 2:17:11 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 2:12:21 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/12/2015 1:56:19 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 12:44:18 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
God is like Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, ect..

The similarity between all these things is claimed to be Zero evidence. I will assume there is zero evidence for God. That Zero evidence means something does not exist.

Now I ask what is the logical argument that begins with Zero Evidence and logically implies or concludes "entity with zero evidence is non-existent"?

That seems to be shifting the burden - how does zero evidence for an entity logically lead to 'it exists'?

I'm asking for a logical valid and sound argument that begins with "There is zero evidence of this entity" and concludes with "Therefore this entity does not exist."

Yes, I know what you're looking for: a sucker ..*ahem*...individual willing to take on a burden you are not.
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
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 2:18:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 2:14:52 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:10:56 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/12/2015 1:56:19 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 12:44:18 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
God is like Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, ect..

The similarity between all these things is claimed to be Zero evidence. I will assume there is zero evidence for God. That Zero evidence means something does not exist.

Now I ask what is the logical argument that begins with Zero Evidence and logically implies or concludes "entity with zero evidence is non-existent"?

That seems to be shifting the burden - how does zero evidence for an entity logically lead to 'it exists'?

What I think he means, is, that if you claim there is zero evidence for something, it still does not evaluate to said something not existing. For instance if we claim we have Zero evidence of evolved alien life forms, it does not evaluate that evolved alien life forms do not exist.

No, of course, but claiming something with zero evidence exists is what gets us into this discussion to begin with which leads us back to my question: how does zero evidence for an entity logically lead to 'it exists'?

I don't know, and I am not quite sure where this is leading, But I would add that the topic or existence of God is not a subject with zero evidence but a topic with substantial debatable evidence, upon which one could draw a conclusion. Other than that, I am not sure where this thread is leading.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 2:23:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 2:12:21 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/12/2015 1:56:19 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 12:44:18 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
God is like Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, ect..

The similarity between all these things is claimed to be Zero evidence. I will assume there is zero evidence for God. That Zero evidence means something does not exist.

Now I ask what is the logical argument that begins with Zero Evidence and logically implies or concludes "entity with zero evidence is non-existent"?

That seems to be shifting the burden - how does zero evidence for an entity logically lead to 'it exists'?

I'm asking for a logical valid and sound argument that begins with "There is zero evidence of this entity" and concludes with "Therefore this entity does not exist."

I think you appealing to absurdities, as the same could be applied to any line of reasoning,

How can I say, there is zero evidence that all dead people are resurrected again on another planet much better than this one, How can I prove that doesn't exist? I can't. But then you could apply that to any line of reasoning, that has zero evidence.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 2:24:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 2:18:43 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:14:52 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:10:56 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/12/2015 1:56:19 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 12:44:18 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
God is like Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, ect..

The similarity between all these things is claimed to be Zero evidence. I will assume there is zero evidence for God. That Zero evidence means something does not exist.

Now I ask what is the logical argument that begins with Zero Evidence and logically implies or concludes "entity with zero evidence is non-existent"?

That seems to be shifting the burden - how does zero evidence for an entity logically lead to 'it exists'?

What I think he means, is, that if you claim there is zero evidence for something, it still does not evaluate to said something not existing. For instance if we claim we have Zero evidence of evolved alien life forms, it does not evaluate that evolved alien life forms do not exist.

No, of course, but claiming something with zero evidence exists is what gets us into this discussion to begin with which leads us back to my question: how does zero evidence for an entity logically lead to 'it exists'?

I don't know, and I am not quite sure where this is leading, But I would add that the topic or existence of God is not a subject with zero evidence but a topic with substantial debatable evidence, upon which one could draw a conclusion. Other than that, I am not sure where this thread is leading.

Mhykiel, for the sake of the argument, conceded there was zero evidence for a given entity, and that is where my question comes from.

As far as your claim - what god are you talking about? Define "God".
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
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 2:32:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 2:24:19 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:18:43 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:14:52 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:10:56 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/12/2015 1:56:19 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 12:44:18 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
God is like Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, ect..

The similarity between all these things is claimed to be Zero evidence. I will assume there is zero evidence for God. That Zero evidence means something does not exist.

Now I ask what is the logical argument that begins with Zero Evidence and logically implies or concludes "entity with zero evidence is non-existent"?

That seems to be shifting the burden - how does zero evidence for an entity logically lead to 'it exists'?

What I think he means, is, that if you claim there is zero evidence for something, it still does not evaluate to said something not existing. For instance if we claim we have Zero evidence of evolved alien life forms, it does not evaluate that evolved alien life forms do not exist.

No, of course, but claiming something with zero evidence exists is what gets us into this discussion to begin with which leads us back to my question: how does zero evidence for an entity logically lead to 'it exists'?

I don't know, and I am not quite sure where this is leading, But I would add that the topic or existence of God is not a subject with zero evidence but a topic with substantial debatable evidence, upon which one could draw a conclusion. Other than that, I am not sure where this thread is leading.

Mhykiel, for the sake of the argument, conceded there was zero evidence for a given entity, and that is where my question comes from.

As far as your claim - what god are you talking about? Define "God".

God The supreme being and creator of the universe who has immense power and attributes with a supreme intelligence. I always wonder how people can ask which God, as if they have a different vision of God according to each book. When God in every book is described as the supreme creator of the universe with immense power and attributes.

To add, only one God needs to exist, who by plenary portions is able to incarnate an infinitude of gods, But only God Himself can be supreme.
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 2:34:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 12:44:18 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
God is like Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, ect..

The similarity between all these things is claimed to be Zero evidence. I will assume there is zero evidence for God. That Zero evidence means something does not exist.

Now I ask what is the logical argument that begins with Zero Evidence and logically implies or concludes "entity with zero evidence is non-existent"?

Which came first - theists or atheists?
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 2:40:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 2:17:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:12:21 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/12/2015 1:56:19 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 12:44:18 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
God is like Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, ect..

The similarity between all these things is claimed to be Zero evidence. I will assume there is zero evidence for God. That Zero evidence means something does not exist.

Now I ask what is the logical argument that begins with Zero Evidence and logically implies or concludes "entity with zero evidence is non-existent"?

That seems to be shifting the burden - how does zero evidence for an entity logically lead to 'it exists'?

I'm asking for a logical valid and sound argument that begins with "There is zero evidence of this entity" and concludes with "Therefore this entity does not exist."

Yes, I know what you're looking for: a sucker ..*ahem*...individual willing to take on a burden you are not.

Some Atheist on this site have described God as being like Santa Clause and Toothe Fairy.

The argument they present is that there is no evidence for any of these things. And therefore they do NOT exist.

I am asking for the people who say such things to provide a formal proof, (so that it is un-contingent on the particular entity) that demonstrates a logical implication between Zero evidence and Non-Existence.

Are you suggesting some Atheist on this site do not make such an argument?

Are suggesting such a relationship between Zero evidence and non-existence is illogical?

Are you suggesting that "zero evidence" does logically lead to a conclusion that the entity in question does Not Exist?
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 2:51:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 2:32:44 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:24:19 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:18:43 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:14:52 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:10:56 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/12/2015 1:56:19 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 12:44:18 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
God is like Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, ect..

The similarity between all these things is claimed to be Zero evidence. I will assume there is zero evidence for God. That Zero evidence means something does not exist.

Now I ask what is the logical argument that begins with Zero Evidence and logically implies or concludes "entity with zero evidence is non-existent"?

That seems to be shifting the burden - how does zero evidence for an entity logically lead to 'it exists'?

What I think he means, is, that if you claim there is zero evidence for something, it still does not evaluate to said something not existing. For instance if we claim we have Zero evidence of evolved alien life forms, it does not evaluate that evolved alien life forms do not exist.

No, of course, but claiming something with zero evidence exists is what gets us into this discussion to begin with which leads us back to my question: how does zero evidence for an entity logically lead to 'it exists'?

I don't know, and I am not quite sure where this is leading, But I would add that the topic or existence of God is not a subject with zero evidence but a topic with substantial debatable evidence, upon which one could draw a conclusion. Other than that, I am not sure where this thread is leading.

Mhykiel, for the sake of the argument, conceded there was zero evidence for a given entity, and that is where my question comes from.

As far as your claim - what god are you talking about? Define "God".


God The supreme being and creator of the universe who has immense power and attributes with a supreme intelligence. I always wonder how people can ask which God, as if they have a different vision of God according to each book. When God in every book is described as the supreme creator of the universe with immense power and attributes.

The gods in the holy books are not the same - for instance the Christian god is triune whereas the god of Islam and Judaism is not. Are you referring to a specific god?

To add, only one God needs to exist, who by plenary portions is able to incarnate an infinitude of gods, But only God Himself can be supreme.

Are you certain a god exists or not? If not, then I can appreciate the vagueness since you acknowledge 'you don't know'. However, your statements do not suggest uncertainty, and that being the case, you should be able to confidently define your god instead of hiding behind ambiguity. Let's not play games.
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
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 2:59:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 2:51:15 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:32:44 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:24:19 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:18:43 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:14:52 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:10:56 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/12/2015 1:56:19 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 12:44:18 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
God is like Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, ect..

The similarity between all these things is claimed to be Zero evidence. I will assume there is zero evidence for God. That Zero evidence means something does not exist.

Now I ask what is the logical argument that begins with Zero Evidence and logically implies or concludes "entity with zero evidence is non-existent"?

That seems to be shifting the burden - how does zero evidence for an entity logically lead to 'it exists'?

What I think he means, is, that if you claim there is zero evidence for something, it still does not evaluate to said something not existing. For instance if we claim we have Zero evidence of evolved alien life forms, it does not evaluate that evolved alien life forms do not exist.

No, of course, but claiming something with zero evidence exists is what gets us into this discussion to begin with which leads us back to my question: how does zero evidence for an entity logically lead to 'it exists'?

I don't know, and I am not quite sure where this is leading, But I would add that the topic or existence of God is not a subject with zero evidence but a topic with substantial debatable evidence, upon which one could draw a conclusion. Other than that, I am not sure where this thread is leading.

Mhykiel, for the sake of the argument, conceded there was zero evidence for a given entity, and that is where my question comes from.

As far as your claim - what god are you talking about? Define "God".


God The supreme being and creator of the universe who has immense power and attributes with a supreme intelligence. I always wonder how people can ask which God, as if they have a different vision of God according to each book. When God in every book is described as the supreme creator of the universe with immense power and attributes.

The gods in the holy books are not the same - for instance the Christian god is triune whereas the god of Islam and Judaism is not. Are you referring to a specific god?

It's not necessary to appeal to a God of scripture to be able to define God, but all scriptures define God as the supreme being, So in the very least God is to be defined as supreme, Supreme means the first in rank or the highest authority, That's who God is. The highest authority, with immense power, intelligence, and attributes. I think we can agree that all scriptures define God as such.


To add, only one God needs to exist, who by plenary portions is able to incarnate an infinitude of gods, But only God Himself can be supreme.

Are you certain a god exists or not? If not, then I can appreciate the vagueness since you acknowledge 'you don't know'. However, your statements do not suggest uncertainty,

I am not certain, that would be a ridiculous claim, but I am convinced.

and that being the case, you should be able to confidently define your god instead of hiding behind ambiguity. Let's not play games.

It's not ambiguity, God to be God, must by definition carry certain attributes, as I have described, That's who God is.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 3:00:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 2:40:18 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:17:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:12:21 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/12/2015 1:56:19 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 12:44:18 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
God is like Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, ect..

The similarity between all these things is claimed to be Zero evidence. I will assume there is zero evidence for God. That Zero evidence means something does not exist.

Now I ask what is the logical argument that begins with Zero Evidence and logically implies or concludes "entity with zero evidence is non-existent"?

That seems to be shifting the burden - how does zero evidence for an entity logically lead to 'it exists'?

I'm asking for a logical valid and sound argument that begins with "There is zero evidence of this entity" and concludes with "Therefore this entity does not exist."

Yes, I know what you're looking for: a sucker ..*ahem*...individual willing to take on a burden you are not.

Some Atheist on this site have described God as being like Santa Clause and Toothe Fairy.

The argument they present is that there is no evidence for any of these things. And therefore they do NOT exist.

I am asking for the people who say such things to provide a formal proof, (so that it is un-contingent on the particular entity) that demonstrates a logical implication between Zero evidence and Non-Existence.

Are you suggesting some Atheist on this site do not make such an argument?

Nope.

Are suggesting such a relationship between Zero evidence and non-existence is illogical?

Nope.

Are you suggesting that "zero evidence" does logically lead to a conclusion that the entity in question does Not Exist?

Nope, I'm suggesting that without the burden of the original claim being met (God exists), then there is no need to have evidence to disprove it.
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
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 3:19:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 3:00:44 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:40:18 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:17:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:12:21 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/12/2015 1:56:19 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 12:44:18 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
God is like Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, ect..

The similarity between all these things is claimed to be Zero evidence. I will assume there is zero evidence for God. That Zero evidence means something does not exist.

Now I ask what is the logical argument that begins with Zero Evidence and logically implies or concludes "entity with zero evidence is non-existent"?

That seems to be shifting the burden - how does zero evidence for an entity logically lead to 'it exists'?

I'm asking for a logical valid and sound argument that begins with "There is zero evidence of this entity" and concludes with "Therefore this entity does not exist."

Yes, I know what you're looking for: a sucker ..*ahem*...individual willing to take on a burden you are not.

Some Atheist on this site have described God as being like Santa Clause and Toothe Fairy.

The argument they present is that there is no evidence for any of these things. And therefore they do NOT exist.

I am asking for the people who say such things to provide a formal proof, (so that it is un-contingent on the particular entity) that demonstrates a logical implication between Zero evidence and Non-Existence.

Are you suggesting some Atheist on this site do not make such an argument?

Nope.

Are suggesting such a relationship between Zero evidence and non-existence is illogical?

Nope.

Are you suggesting that "zero evidence" does logically lead to a conclusion that the entity in question does Not Exist?

Nope, I'm suggesting that without the burden of the original claim being met (God exists), then there is no need to have evidence to disprove it.

Sounds like you are suggesting that what ever claim an atheist makes about God is okay because they are unconvinced by a theist claiming God exists.

I'm not talking about any other claims. I want to know in your mind how zero evidence is sufficient to conclude "not exist".

Can things Exist when we have no evidence of them?
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 3:19:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 2:59:02 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:51:15 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:32:44 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:24:19 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:18:43 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:14:52 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:10:56 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/12/2015 1:56:19 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 12:44:18 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
God is like Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, ect..

The similarity between all these things is claimed to be Zero evidence. I will assume there is zero evidence for God. That Zero evidence means something does not exist.

Now I ask what is the logical argument that begins with Zero Evidence and logically implies or concludes "entity with zero evidence is non-existent"?

That seems to be shifting the burden - how does zero evidence for an entity logically lead to 'it exists'?

What I think he means, is, that if you claim there is zero evidence for something, it still does not evaluate to said something not existing. For instance if we claim we have Zero evidence of evolved alien life forms, it does not evaluate that evolved alien life forms do not exist.

No, of course, but claiming something with zero evidence exists is what gets us into this discussion to begin with which leads us back to my question: how does zero evidence for an entity logically lead to 'it exists'?

I don't know, and I am not quite sure where this is leading, But I would add that the topic or existence of God is not a subject with zero evidence but a topic with substantial debatable evidence, upon which one could draw a conclusion. Other than that, I am not sure where this thread is leading.

Mhykiel, for the sake of the argument, conceded there was zero evidence for a given entity, and that is where my question comes from.

As far as your claim - what god are you talking about? Define "God".


God The supreme being and creator of the universe who has immense power and attributes with a supreme intelligence. I always wonder how people can ask which God, as if they have a different vision of God according to each book. When God in every book is described as the supreme creator of the universe with immense power and attributes.

The gods in the holy books are not the same - for instance the Christian god is triune whereas the god of Islam and Judaism is not. Are you referring to a specific god?

It's not necessary to appeal to a God of scripture to be able to define God, but all scriptures define God as the supreme being, So in the very least God is to be defined as supreme, Supreme means the first in rank or the highest authority, That's who God is. The highest authority, with immense power, intelligence, and attributes. I think we can agree that all scriptures define God as such.

Okay, so basically you are arguing for a super god. All the attributes in all the holy books - that means if any interaction, any contradictory traits, any errors in the books contrary to the posited nature of said God, then we would have reason to doubt that god exists as described (or at all). Well, my friend, we have reason to doubt that god exists.


To add, only one God needs to exist, who by plenary portions is able to incarnate an infinitude of gods, But only God Himself can be supreme.

Are you certain a god exists or not? If not, then I can appreciate the vagueness since you acknowledge 'you don't know'. However, your statements do not suggest uncertainty,

I am not certain, that would be a ridiculous claim, but I am convinced.


and that being the case, you should be able to confidently define your god instead of hiding behind ambiguity. Let's not play games.

It's not ambiguity, God to be God, must by definition carry certain attributes, as I have described, That's who God is.

You're tying the Abrahamic God to a deistic god, but the two are completely different. One small difference between your definition of god, and the god of scripture is that the latter is personal. Did you mean to leave that out if your definition?
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
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 3:20:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 12:44:18 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
God is like Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, ect..

The similarity between all these things is claimed to be Zero evidence. I will assume there is zero evidence for God. That Zero evidence means something does not exist.

Now I ask what is the logical argument that begins with Zero Evidence and logically implies or concludes "entity with zero evidence is non-existent"?

There isn't one on purely logic deductive grounds........

1) There is no evidence for X
C) Therefore X does not exist

You can replace God here with a near infinite amount of things like........

Invisible dragons
Demons
A demon riding an invisible dragon

What I want to know is why does such a rational person like yourself just assume that a demon riding an invisible dragon doesn't exist, you know damm well that lack of evidence does not logically entail it's non existence.

You just distract us all with all your God talk, yet refuse to deal with the issue at hand. Demons riding invisible dragons.

Stop being so irrational, stop just assuming that there are not demons riding around among us on invisible dragons..............that would make you no better than say an atheist.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 3:24:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 3:19:03 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:59:02 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:51:15 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:32:44 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:24:19 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:18:43 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:14:52 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:10:56 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/12/2015 1:56:19 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 12:44:18 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
God is like Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, ect..

The similarity between all these things is claimed to be Zero evidence. I will assume there is zero evidence for God. That Zero evidence means something does not exist.

Now I ask what is the logical argument that begins with Zero Evidence and logically implies or concludes "entity with zero evidence is non-existent"?

That seems to be shifting the burden - how does zero evidence for an entity logically lead to 'it exists'?

What I think he means, is, that if you claim there is zero evidence for something, it still does not evaluate to said something not existing. For instance if we claim we have Zero evidence of evolved alien life forms, it does not evaluate that evolved alien life forms do not exist.

No, of course, but claiming something with zero evidence exists is what gets us into this discussion to begin with which leads us back to my question: how does zero evidence for an entity logically lead to 'it exists'?

I don't know, and I am not quite sure where this is leading, But I would add that the topic or existence of God is not a subject with zero evidence but a topic with substantial debatable evidence, upon which one could draw a conclusion. Other than that, I am not sure where this thread is leading.

Mhykiel, for the sake of the argument, conceded there was zero evidence for a given entity, and that is where my question comes from.

As far as your claim - what god are you talking about? Define "God".


God The supreme being and creator of the universe who has immense power and attributes with a supreme intelligence. I always wonder how people can ask which God, as if they have a different vision of God according to each book. When God in every book is described as the supreme creator of the universe with immense power and attributes.

The gods in the holy books are not the same - for instance the Christian god is triune whereas the god of Islam and Judaism is not. Are you referring to a specific god?

It's not necessary to appeal to a God of scripture to be able to define God, but all scriptures define God as the supreme being, So in the very least God is to be defined as supreme, Supreme means the first in rank or the highest authority, That's who God is. The highest authority, with immense power, intelligence, and attributes. I think we can agree that all scriptures define God as such.

Okay, so basically you are arguing for a super god.

No, I am arguing that God is, not as you would put it, super, but supreme. By default.

All the attributes in all the holy books - that means if any interaction, any contradictory traits, any errors in the books contrary to the posited nature of said God,

No, you never asked me to tell you what God wants, but what God is by definition.

then we would have reason to doubt that god exists as described (or at all). Well, my friend, we have reason to doubt that god exists.

You may have reason to doubt, that's all very well, but you may also find reason to believe as do many.



To add, only one God needs to exist, who by plenary portions is able to incarnate an infinitude of gods, But only God Himself can be supreme.

Are you certain a god exists or not? If not, then I can appreciate the vagueness since you acknowledge 'you don't know'. However, your statements do not suggest uncertainty,

I am not certain, that would be a ridiculous claim, but I am convinced.


and that being the case, you should be able to confidently define your god instead of hiding behind ambiguity. Let's not play games.

It's not ambiguity, God to be God, must by definition carry certain attributes, as I have described, That's who God is.

You're tying the Abrahamic God to a deistic god, but the two are completely different. One small difference between your definition of god, and the god of scripture is that the latter is personal. Did you mean to leave that out if your definition?

Maybe I forget to add, but as I believe God is a person, then God should also be personal.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 3:28:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 3:20:04 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/12/2015 12:44:18 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
God is like Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, ect..

The similarity between all these things is claimed to be Zero evidence. I will assume there is zero evidence for God. That Zero evidence means something does not exist.

Now I ask what is the logical argument that begins with Zero Evidence and logically implies or concludes "entity with zero evidence is non-existent"?

There isn't one on purely logic deductive grounds........

1) There is no evidence for X
C) Therefore X does not exist

Thank you so zero evidence is not evidence for non existence.

Such as the statement goes "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".


You can replace God here with a near infinite amount of things like........

Invisible dragons
Demons
A demon riding an invisible dragon

What I want to know is why does such a rational person like yourself just assume that a demon riding an invisible dragon doesn't exist, you know damn well that lack of evidence does not logically entail it's non existence.

I did not say a lack of evidence logically means to accept a claim either. Why do you refute a person who says X exists, and it doesn't matter that there is no evidence... AND not the person who says X does NOT exist because there is no evidence.

Both sides of affirming or denying an entities existence upon an absence of evidence is illogical. Both sides.


You just distract us all with all your God talk, yet refuse to deal with the issue at hand. Demons riding invisible dragons.

Stop being so irrational, stop just assuming that there are not demons riding around among us on invisible dragons..............that would make you no better than say an atheist.

I don't know what effect an invisible dragon riding around on an invisible dragon might have on the observable world. But I don't see anything in the observable world that leads me to hypothesize or require such an entity.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 3:35:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 3:19:00 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/12/2015 3:00:44 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:40:18 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:17:11 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:12:21 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/12/2015 1:56:19 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 12:44:18 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
God is like Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, ect..

The similarity between all these things is claimed to be Zero evidence. I will assume there is zero evidence for God. That Zero evidence means something does not exist.

Now I ask what is the logical argument that begins with Zero Evidence and logically implies or concludes "entity with zero evidence is non-existent"?

That seems to be shifting the burden - how does zero evidence for an entity logically lead to 'it exists'?

I'm asking for a logical valid and sound argument that begins with "There is zero evidence of this entity" and concludes with "Therefore this entity does not exist."

Yes, I know what you're looking for: a sucker ..*ahem*...individual willing to take on a burden you are not.

Some Atheist on this site have described God as being like Santa Clause and Toothe Fairy.

The argument they present is that there is no evidence for any of these things. And therefore they do NOT exist.

I am asking for the people who say such things to provide a formal proof, (so that it is un-contingent on the particular entity) that demonstrates a logical implication between Zero evidence and Non-Existence.

Are you suggesting some Atheist on this site do not make such an argument?

Nope.

Are suggesting such a relationship between Zero evidence and non-existence is illogical?

Nope.

Are you suggesting that "zero evidence" does logically lead to a conclusion that the entity in question does Not Exist?

Nope, I'm suggesting that without the burden of the original claim being met (God exists), then there is no need to have evidence to disprove it.

Sounds like you are suggesting that what ever claim an atheist makes about God is okay because they are unconvinced by a theist claiming God exists.

No, you're right that claims should be supported. However, you can't complain about atheists not supporting their claims when you are guilty of the same sin.

I'm not talking about any other claims. I want to know in your mind how zero evidence is sufficient to conclude "not exist".

Well, we're both overlooking how lack of evidence (that is reasonable to expect) can be evidence of absense. For instance, lack of evidence for millions of people wandering the Sinai desert for 40 years is evidence that it likely never happened since it is reasonable millions of people living in close proximity to one another for a period of 40 years would have left some evidence. Once we get into the actual specific definitions of god, then we can start determining what evidence is reasonable to expect.

Can things Exist when we have no evidence of them?

Yes, but we have no logical reason to suspect they do without evidence.
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
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 3:44:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 3:28:24 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/12/2015 3:20:04 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/12/2015 12:44:18 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
God is like Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, ect..

The similarity between all these things is claimed to be Zero evidence. I will assume there is zero evidence for God. That Zero evidence means something does not exist.

Now I ask what is the logical argument that begins with Zero Evidence and logically implies or concludes "entity with zero evidence is non-existent"?

There isn't one on purely logic deductive grounds........

1) There is no evidence for X
C) Therefore X does not exist

Thank you so zero evidence is not evidence for non existence.

Such as the statement goes "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

I think you need to be very precise here cause I don't accept that claim.

There is no evidence for X does not LOGICALLY ENTAIL therefore X does not exist

There is no evidence for X is what would be the case if X did not exist.

But lack of evidence can be used to make an argument X more than likely does not exist.

Logical entailment vs probability.



You can replace God here with a near infinite amount of things like........

Invisible dragons
Demons
A demon riding an invisible dragon

What I want to know is why does such a rational person like yourself just assume that a demon riding an invisible dragon doesn't exist, you know damn well that lack of evidence does not logically entail it's non existence.

I did not say a lack of evidence logically means to accept a claim either. Why do you refute a person who says X exists, and it doesn't matter that there is no evidence... AND not the person who says X does NOT exist because there is no evidence.

Both sides of affirming or denying an entities existence upon an absence of evidence is illogical. Both sides.


You just distract us all with all your God talk, yet refuse to deal with the issue at hand. Demons riding invisible dragons.

Stop being so irrational, stop just assuming that there are not demons riding around among us on invisible dragons..............that would make you no better than say an atheist.

I don't know what effect an invisible dragon riding around on an invisible dragon might have on the observable world. But I don't see anything in the observable world that leads me to hypothesize or require such an entity.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,134
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 3:48:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 3:24:14 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/12/2015 3:19:03 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:59:02 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:51:15 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:32:44 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:24:19 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:18:43 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:14:52 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:10:56 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/12/2015 1:56:19 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 12:44:18 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
God is like Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, ect..

The similarity between all these things is claimed to be Zero evidence. I will assume there is zero evidence for God. That Zero evidence means something does not exist.

Now I ask what is the logical argument that begins with Zero Evidence and logically implies or concludes "entity with zero evidence is non-existent"?

That seems to be shifting the burden - how does zero evidence for an entity logically lead to 'it exists'?

What I think he means, is, that if you claim there is zero evidence for something, it still does not evaluate to said something not existing. For instance if we claim we have Zero evidence of evolved alien life forms, it does not evaluate that evolved alien life forms do not exist.

No, of course, but claiming something with zero evidence exists is what gets us into this discussion to begin with which leads us back to my question: how does zero evidence for an entity logically lead to 'it exists'?

I don't know, and I am not quite sure where this is leading, But I would add that the topic or existence of God is not a subject with zero evidence but a topic with substantial debatable evidence, upon which one could draw a conclusion. Other than that, I am not sure where this thread is leading.

Mhykiel, for the sake of the argument, conceded there was zero evidence for a given entity, and that is where my question comes from.

As far as your claim - what god are you talking about? Define "God".


God The supreme being and creator of the universe who has immense power and attributes with a supreme intelligence. I always wonder how people can ask which God, as if they have a different vision of God according to each book. When God in every book is described as the supreme creator of the universe with immense power and attributes.

The gods in the holy books are not the same - for instance the Christian god is triune whereas the god of Islam and Judaism is not. Are you referring to a specific god?

It's not necessary to appeal to a God of scripture to be able to define God, but all scriptures define God as the supreme being, So in the very least God is to be defined as supreme, Supreme means the first in rank or the highest authority, That's who God is. The highest authority, with immense power, intelligence, and attributes. I think we can agree that all scriptures define God as such.

Okay, so basically you are arguing for a super god.

No, I am arguing that God is, not as you would put it, super, but supreme. By default.

You've arguing for a god that is all the gods in (at least) the Abrahamic faiths. So your God is greater than any of the individual gods posited in any one particular holy book. Super God is an accurate description.


All the attributes in all the holy books - that means if any interaction, any contradictory traits, any errors in the books contrary to the posited nature of said God,

No, you never asked me to tell you what God wants, but what God is by definition.

then we would have reason to doubt that god exists as described (or at all). Well, my friend, we have reason to doubt that god exists.


You may have reason to doubt, that's all very well, but you may also find reason to believe as do many.

Lol, you're not really trying proselytize when an explanation is expected, are you?!




To add, only one God needs to exist, who by plenary portions is able to incarnate an infinitude of gods, But only God Himself can be supreme.

Are you certain a god exists or not? If not, then I can appreciate the vagueness since you acknowledge 'you don't know'. However, your statements do not suggest uncertainty,

I am not certain, that would be a ridiculous claim, but I am convinced.


and that being the case, you should be able to confidently define your god instead of hiding behind ambiguity. Let's not play games.

It's not ambiguity, God to be God, must by definition carry certain attributes, as I have described, That's who God is.

You're tying the Abrahamic God to a deistic god, but the two are completely different. One small difference between your definition of god, and the god of scripture is that the latter is personal. Did you mean to leave that out if your definition?

Maybe I forget to add, but as I believe God is a person, then God should also be personal.

How do you know anything about this God outside of scripture?
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
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 4:01:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 3:48:57 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 3:24:14 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/12/2015 3:19:03 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:59:02 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:51:15 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:32:44 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:24:19 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:18:43 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:14:52 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:10:56 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/12/2015 1:56:19 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 12:44:18 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
God is like Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, ect..

The similarity between all these things is claimed to be Zero evidence. I will assume there is zero evidence for God. That Zero evidence means something does not exist.

Now I ask what is the logical argument that begins with Zero Evidence and logically implies or concludes "entity with zero evidence is non-existent"?

That seems to be shifting the burden - how does zero evidence for an entity logically lead to 'it exists'?

What I think he means, is, that if you claim there is zero evidence for something, it still does not evaluate to said something not existing. For instance if we claim we have Zero evidence of evolved alien life forms, it does not evaluate that evolved alien life forms do not exist.

No, of course, but claiming something with zero evidence exists is what gets us into this discussion to begin with which leads us back to my question: how does zero evidence for an entity logically lead to 'it exists'?

I don't know, and I am not quite sure where this is leading, But I would add that the topic or existence of God is not a subject with zero evidence but a topic with substantial debatable evidence, upon which one could draw a conclusion. Other than that, I am not sure where this thread is leading.

Mhykiel, for the sake of the argument, conceded there was zero evidence for a given entity, and that is where my question comes from.

As far as your claim - what god are you talking about? Define "God".


God The supreme being and creator of the universe who has immense power and attributes with a supreme intelligence. I always wonder how people can ask which God, as if they have a different vision of God according to each book. When God in every book is described as the supreme creator of the universe with immense power and attributes.

The gods in the holy books are not the same - for instance the Christian god is triune whereas the god of Islam and Judaism is not. Are you referring to a specific god?

It's not necessary to appeal to a God of scripture to be able to define God, but all scriptures define God as the supreme being, So in the very least God is to be defined as supreme, Supreme means the first in rank or the highest authority, That's who God is. The highest authority, with immense power, intelligence, and attributes. I think we can agree that all scriptures define God as such.

Okay, so basically you are arguing for a super god.

No, I am arguing that God is, not as you would put it, super, but supreme. By default.

You've arguing for a god that is all the gods in (at least) the Abrahamic faiths. So your God is greater than any of the individual gods posited in any one particular holy book. Super God is an accurate description.~

No I have offered a definition of God, which doesn't necessarily have to be conflated with all other faiths, just that most faiths would define him in the very least as such. That doesn't mean you have to attach all the other narratives in the scriptures to God.
And super God is not the way I defined God, and is the correct description, as you could have many super gods, but there can only be one supreme God.



All the attributes in all the holy books - that means if any interaction, any contradictory traits, any errors in the books contrary to the posited nature of said God,

No, you never asked me to tell you what God wants, but what God is by definition.

then we would have reason to doubt that god exists as described (or at all). Well, my friend, we have reason to doubt that god exists.


You may have reason to doubt, that's all very well, but you may also find reason to believe as do many.

Lol, you're not really trying proselytize when an explanation is expected, are you?!

I am not sure what you mean.




To add, only one God needs to exist, who by plenary portions is able to incarnate an infinitude of gods, But only God Himself can be supreme.

Are you certain a god exists or not? If not, then I can appreciate the vagueness since you acknowledge 'you don't know'. However, your statements do not suggest uncertainty,

I am not certain, that would be a ridiculous claim, but I am convinced.


and that being the case, you should be able to confidently define your god instead of hiding behind ambiguity. Let's not play games.

It's not ambiguity, God to be God, must by definition carry certain attributes, as I have described, That's who God is.

You're tying the Abrahamic God to a deistic god, but the two are completely different. One small difference between your definition of god, and the god of scripture is that the latter is personal. Did you mean to leave that out if your definition?

Maybe I forget to add, but as I believe God is a person, then God should also be personal.

How do you know anything about this God outside of scripture?

You can also philosophize what God should be by definition.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 4:02:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 4:01:01 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/12/2015 3:48:57 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 3:24:14 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/12/2015 3:19:03 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:59:02 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:51:15 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:32:44 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:24:19 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:18:43 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:14:52 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 2:10:56 AM, johnlubba wrote:
At 4/12/2015 1:56:19 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 4/12/2015 12:44:18 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
God is like Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, ect..

The similarity between all these things is claimed to be Zero evidence. I will assume there is zero evidence for God. That Zero evidence means something does not exist.

Now I ask what is the logical argument that begins with Zero Evidence and logically implies or concludes "entity with zero evidence is non-existent"?

That seems to be shifting the burden - how does zero evidence for an entity logically lead to 'it exists'?

What I think he means, is, that if you claim there is zero evidence for something, it still does not evaluate to said something not existing. For instance if we claim we have Zero evidence of evolved alien life forms, it does not evaluate that evolved alien life forms do not exist.

No, of course, but claiming something with zero evidence exists is what gets us into this discussion to begin with which leads us back to my question: how does zero evidence for an entity logically lead to 'it exists'?

I don't know, and I am not quite sure where this is leading, But I would add that the topic or existence of God is not a subject with zero evidence but a topic with substantial debatable evidence, upon which one could draw a conclusion. Other than that, I am not sure where this thread is leading.

Mhykiel, for the sake of the argument, conceded there was zero evidence for a given entity, and that is where my question comes from.

As far as your claim - what god are you talking about? Define "God".


God The supreme being and creator of the universe who has immense power and attributes with a supreme intelligence. I always wonder how people can ask which God, as if they have a different vision of God according to each book. When God in every book is described as the supreme creator of the universe with immense power and attributes.

The gods in the holy books are not the same - for instance the Christian god is triune whereas the god of Islam and Judaism is not. Are you referring to a specific god?

It's not necessary to appeal to a God of scripture to be able to define God, but all scriptures define God as the supreme being, So in the very least God is to be defined as supreme, Supreme means the first in rank or the highest authority, That's who God is. The highest authority, with immense power, intelligence, and attributes. I think we can agree that all scriptures define God as such.

Okay, so basically you are arguing for a super god.

No, I am arguing that God is, not as you would put it, super, but supreme. By default.

You've arguing for a god that is all the gods in (at least) the Abrahamic faiths. So your God is greater than any of the individual gods posited in any one particular holy book. Super God is an accurate description.~


No, I have offered a definition of God, which doesn't necessarily have to be conflated with all other faiths, just that most faiths would define him in the very least as such. That doesn't mean you have to attach all the other narratives in the scriptures to God.
And super God is not the way I defined God, and isn't the correct description, as you could have many super gods, but there can only be one supreme God.






All the attributes in all the holy books - that means if any interaction, any contradictory traits, any errors in the books contrary to the posited nature of said God,

No, you never asked me to tell you what God wants, but what God is by definition.

then we would have reason to doubt that god exists as described (or at all). Well, my friend, we have reason to doubt that god exists.


You may have reason to doubt, that's all very well, but you may also find reason to believe as do many.

Lol, you're not really trying proselytize when an explanation is expected, are you?!


I am not sure what you mean.




To add, only one God needs to exist, who by plenary portions is able to incarnate an infinitude of gods, But only God Himself can be supreme.

Are you certain a god exists or not? If not, then I can appreciate the vagueness since you acknowledge 'you don't know'. However, your statements do not suggest uncertainty,

I am not certain, that would be a ridiculous claim, but I am convinced.


and that being the case, you should be able to confidently define your god instead of hiding behind ambiguity. Let's not play games.

It's not ambiguity, God to be God, must by definition carry certain attributes, as I have described, That's who God is.

You're tying the Abrahamic God to a deistic god, but the two are completely different. One small difference between your definition of god, and the god of scripture is that the latter is personal. Did you mean to leave that out if your definition?

Maybe I forget to add, but as I believe God is a person, then God should also be personal.

How do you know anything about this God outside of scripture?

You can also philosophize what God should be by definition.
Amoranemix
Posts: 521
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 4:33:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Mhykiel 1
The similarity between all these things is claimed to be Zero evidence. I will assume there is zero evidence for God. That Zero evidence means something does not exist.

Now I ask what is the logical argument that begins with Zero Evidence and logically implies or concludes "entity with zero evidence is non-existent"?
I think it is used as an inductive argument that goes as follows :
P1 If X were to exist, then we would expect to observe evidence A.
P2 We don't observe evidence A.
C Therefore X doesn't exist.

I also think, with 'no evidence' is meant no specific evidence. I'll get back to this with the aliens.

- Scepticalone 2
That seems to be shifting the burden - how does zero evidence for an entity logically lead to 'it exists'?
- johnlubba 3
What I think he means, is, that if you claim there is zero evidence for something, it still does not evaluate to said something not existing. For instance if we claim we have Zero evidence of evolved alien life forms, it does not evaluate that evolved alien life forms do not exist.
There is evidence for aliens, namely as follows :
There is at least one planet that supports life, so their is evidence that some planets can support life. There is also evidence for planets outside of our solar system. Many of those planets we cannot establish whether they support life. So their is evidence for life-supporting planets. So their is evidence for aliens. Of course, the evidence isn't conclusive, but that is a different issue, because the evidence is also consistent with planets without aliens.

- Scepticalone 6
Yes, I know what you're looking for: a sucker ..*ahem*...individual willing to take on a burden you are not.
- Mhykiel 12
Some Atheist on this site have described God as being like Santa Clause and Toothe Fairy.

The argument they present is that there is no evidence for any of these things. And therefore they do NOT exist.

I am asking for the people who say such things to provide a formal proof, (so that it is un-contingent on the particular entity) that demonstrates a logical implication between Zero evidence and Non-Existence.
The philosophical implication that these entities don't exist may be false, but the practical implication is not. If there is no evidence for something, then it is irrelevant for it does not have any impact on you and so you can behave as if it doesn't exist. So even though Santa Clause, God and leprechauns may in reality exist, we can safely assume they don't.
Theists on the other hand ask us to make an exception for God, to which atheists object by reminding theists that God is no different than all those other fantasy beings and should therefore be treated no differently.

- Scepticalone 13
The gods in the holy books are not the same - for instance the Christian god is triune whereas the god of Islam and Judaism is not. Are you referring to a specific god?
- johnlubba 14
It's not necessary to appeal to a God of scripture to be able to define God, but all scriptures define God as the supreme being, So in the very least God is to be defined as supreme, Supreme means the first in rank or the highest authority, That's who God is. The highest authority, with immense power, intelligence, and attributes. I think we can agree that all scriptures define God as such.
'Supreme', 'first rank' and 'highest authority' are vague or subjective.

- Scepticalone 15
Nope, I'm suggesting that without the burden of the original claim being met (God exists), then there is no need to have evidence to disprove it.
- Mhykiel 16
Sounds like you are suggesting that what ever claim an atheist makes about God is okay because they are unconvinced by a theist claiming God exists.
It seems to me that when faced with the bald assertion 'God exists', the atheist is entitled to baldly assert the opposite. It would be generous of him to add the inductive argument this thread is about.

Mhykiel 20
Such as the statement goes "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
You made a claim. Please honour your burden of proof.

Mhykiel 20 to illegalcombatant
I did not say a lack of evidence logically means to accept a claim either. Why do you refute a person who says X exists, and it doesn't matter that there is no evidence... AND not the person who says X does NOT exist because there is no evidence.
Because I happen to agree with the person who claims God doesn't exist.

- illegalcombatant 18
Stop being so irrational, stop just assuming that there are not demons riding around among us on invisible dragons..............that would make you no better than say an atheist.
- Mhykiel 20
I don't know what effect an invisible dragon riding around on an invisible dragon might have on the observable world. But I don't see anything in the observable world that leads me to hypothesize or require such an entity.
Imagine someone argued that you should barricade your house because a horde of invisible dragon riding demons is going to attack the town. After several hours or arguing you might blurt out : "There is no evidence for invisible dragon riding demons, so they don't exist."

- Scepticalone 23
How do you know anything about this God outside of scripture?
- johnlubba 24
You can also philosophize what God should be by definition.
You wouldn't get far without evidence.
The earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth.
Otokage
Posts: 2,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 4:38:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 12:44:18 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
God is like Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, ect..

The similarity between all these things is claimed to be Zero evidence. I will assume there is zero evidence for God. That Zero evidence means something does not exist.

Now I ask what is the logical argument that begins with Zero Evidence and logically implies or concludes "entity with zero evidence is non-existent"?

To be rigorous, having "zero evidence" doesn't mean something does not exist, but that despite our efforts, we haven't found it. This applies to Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, mermaids, and also God. It is your own choice to believe those things have been demonstrated nonexistant beyond reasonable doubt, or if they sound like reasonable entities and therefore will eventualy be found.
Otokage
Posts: 2,360
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 4:38:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 12:44:18 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
God is like Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, ect..

The similarity between all these things is claimed to be Zero evidence. I will assume there is zero evidence for God. That Zero evidence means something does not exist.

Now I ask what is the logical argument that begins with Zero Evidence and logically implies or concludes "entity with zero evidence is non-existent"?

To be rigorous, having "zero evidence" doesn't mean something does not exist, but that despite our efforts, we haven't found it. This applies to Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, mermaids, and also God. It is your own choice to believe those things have been demonstrated nonexistant beyond reasonable doubt, or if they sound like reasonable entities and therefore will eventualy be found.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 4:41:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 4:38:19 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 4/12/2015 12:44:18 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
God is like Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, ect..

The similarity between all these things is claimed to be Zero evidence. I will assume there is zero evidence for God. That Zero evidence means something does not exist.

Now I ask what is the logical argument that begins with Zero Evidence and logically implies or concludes "entity with zero evidence is non-existent"?

To be rigorous, having "zero evidence" doesn't mean something does not exist, but that despite our efforts, we haven't found it. This applies to Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, mermaids, and also God. It is your own choice to believe those things have been demonstrated nonexistant beyond reasonable doubt, or if they sound like reasonable entities and therefore will eventualy be found.

Sounds like a decent summarization.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2015 7:56:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/12/2015 12:44:18 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
God is like Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, ect..

The similarity between all these things is claimed to be Zero evidence. I will assume there is zero evidence for God. That Zero evidence means something does not exist.

Now I ask what is the logical argument that begins with Zero Evidence and logically implies or concludes "entity with zero evidence is non-existent"?

- You'll eventually realise that Atheists are equally as dogmatic as Theists, some are just more sophisticated about it.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...