Total Posts:66|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Weak Atheist Arguments

Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 2:32:37 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
In a recent discussion on the existence of God (any God), the premise was proposed, "absence of proof can be proof of absence", accompanied by an analogy that absence of proof of the presence of a brick wall is proof of absence of a brick wall. This argument is easily refuted and the analogy fails.

That kind of illogical statement scares me. It scares me for the intellectual health of mankind. If someone disagrees with reasons which are at least superficially valid, I understand.

My question is, do most people find these arguments to be more of a desperate attempt to avoid a higher being or is it a convincing argument to most?
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 2:41:20 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 2:32:37 PM, Throwback wrote:
In a recent discussion on the existence of God (any God), the premise was proposed, "absence of proof can be proof of absence", accompanied by an analogy that absence of proof of the presence of a brick wall is proof of absence of a brick wall. This argument is easily refuted and the analogy fails.

That kind of illogical statement scares me. It scares me for the intellectual health of mankind. If someone disagrees with reasons which are at least superficially valid, I understand.

My question is, do most people find these arguments to be more of a desperate attempt to avoid a higher being or is it a convincing argument to most?

The theists lack the existence of God, and with no proof of presence.
What would you do with this information ?
Theists answer . Worship him and do as he asks. So with no proof of presence, not a drop. They are now also believing the words of God. That's not weak .
That's straight up mental.
Hillary4Prez
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 2:44:46 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 2:32:37 PM, Throwback wrote:
In a recent discussion on the existence of God (any God), the premise was proposed, "absence of proof can be proof of absence", accompanied by an analogy that absence of proof of the presence of a brick wall is proof of absence of a brick wall. This argument is easily refuted and the analogy fails.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence, but why should we assume that a God exists if there is no proof? Occam's Razor proves this. Assuming that something is true without proof is just as illogical as saying that absence of proof can be proof of absence.
That kind of illogical statement scares me. It scares me for the intellectual health of mankind. If someone disagrees with reasons which are at least superficially valid, I understand.
My question is, do most people find these arguments to be more of a desperate attempt to avoid a higher being or is it a convincing argument to most?
Not necessarily convincing in and of itself, but if the question we're asking is "is it logical to assume God exists" rather than "Does God exist," than I find it to be a convincing argument.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 2:45:17 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 2:32:37 PM, Throwback wrote:
In a recent discussion on the existence of God (any God), the premise was proposed, "absence of proof can be proof of absence", accompanied by an analogy that absence of proof of the presence of a brick wall is proof of absence of a brick wall. This argument is easily refuted and the analogy fails.

That kind of illogical statement scares me. It scares me for the intellectual health of mankind. If someone disagrees with reasons which are at least superficially valid, I understand.

My question is, do most people find these arguments to be more of a desperate attempt to avoid a higher being or is it a convincing argument to most?

Atheists don't need an argument. Theists need to present a reasonable argument for god before anything could be reasonably debated.

I don't need to argue that Russell's teapot doesn't exist until someone can provide some evidence that it does.

https://en.wikipedia.org...

Do you have any evidence of a god that the rest of the world is unaware of? What is your best two points?
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 2:46:47 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 2:41:20 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 7/23/2016 2:32:37 PM, Throwback wrote:
In a recent discussion on the existence of God (any God), the premise was proposed, "absence of proof can be proof of absence", accompanied by an analogy that absence of proof of the presence of a brick wall is proof of absence of a brick wall. This argument is easily refuted and the analogy fails.

That kind of illogical statement scares me. It scares me for the intellectual health of mankind. If someone disagrees with reasons which are at least superficially valid, I understand.

My question is, do most people find these arguments to be more of a desperate attempt to avoid a higher being or is it a convincing argument to most?

The theists lack the existence of God, and with no proof of presence.
What would you do with this information ?
Theists answer . Worship him and do as he asks. So with no proof of presence, not a drop. They are now also believing the words of God. That's not weak .
That's straight up mental.

And I thank you for making my point. Poor intelligence demands proof of everything. You demonstrate a very, very poor grammar, yet you scoff at the idea there can be anything beyond your ability to prove. Reason can show reasonable people there must be a God. Reason can show reasonable people many things which do not contain "proofs".
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 2:48:54 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 2:44:46 PM, Hillary4Prez wrote:
At 7/23/2016 2:32:37 PM, Throwback wrote:
In a recent discussion on the existence of God (any God), the premise was proposed, "absence of proof can be proof of absence", accompanied by an analogy that absence of proof of the presence of a brick wall is proof of absence of a brick wall. This argument is easily refuted and the analogy fails.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence, but why should we assume that a God exists if there is no proof? Occam's Razor proves this. Assuming that something is true without proof is just as illogical as saying that absence of proof can be proof of absence.
That kind of illogical statement scares me. It scares me for the intellectual health of mankind. If someone disagrees with reasons which are at least superficially valid, I understand.
My question is, do most people find these arguments to be more of a desperate attempt to avoid a higher being or is it a convincing argument to most?
Not necessarily convincing in and of itself, but if the question we're asking is "is it logical to assume God exists" rather than "Does God exist," than I find it to be a convincing argument.

I was not asking assent to the existence of God on this topic. Basically, you agreed with me, that that argument is not valid. Thank you for being reasonable.
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 2:49:10 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 2:32:37 PM, Throwback wrote:
In a recent discussion on the existence of God (any God), the premise was proposed, "absence of proof can be proof of absence", accompanied by an analogy that absence of proof of the presence of a brick wall is proof of absence of a brick wall. This argument is easily refuted and the analogy fails.

That kind of illogical statement scares me. It scares me for the intellectual health of mankind. If someone disagrees with reasons which are at least superficially valid, I understand.

My question is, do most people find these arguments to be more of a desperate attempt to avoid a higher being or is it a convincing argument to most?

"No sound" is evidence of an empty box being shaken.

"No light" is evidence of light switch not receiving electricity.

"No engine start" is evidence gas not being present in a vehicle.

The list goes on.

What is REALLY scary:

God is defined as having the ability to create existence.
Existence exists.

Therefore God created it.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 2:50:10 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 2:46:47 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 7/23/2016 2:41:20 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 7/23/2016 2:32:37 PM, Throwback wrote:
In a recent discussion on the existence of God (any God), the premise was proposed, "absence of proof can be proof of absence", accompanied by an analogy that absence of proof of the presence of a brick wall is proof of absence of a brick wall. This argument is easily refuted and the analogy fails.

That kind of illogical statement scares me. It scares me for the intellectual health of mankind. If someone disagrees with reasons which are at least superficially valid, I understand.

My question is, do most people find these arguments to be more of a desperate attempt to avoid a higher being or is it a convincing argument to most?

The theists lack the existence of God, and with no proof of presence.
What would you do with this information ?
Theists answer . Worship him and do as he asks. So with no proof of presence, not a drop. They are now also believing the words of God. That's not weak .
That's straight up mental.

And I thank you for making my point. Poor intelligence demands proof of everything. You demonstrate a very, very poor grammar, yet you scoff at the idea there can be anything beyond your ability to prove. Reason can show reasonable people there must be a God. Reason can show reasonable people many things which do not contain "proofs".

What else do you believe in so much that you can't prove.?
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 2:51:47 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 2:48:54 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 7/23/2016 2:44:46 PM, Hillary4Prez wrote:
At 7/23/2016 2:32:37 PM, Throwback wrote:
In a recent discussion on the existence of God (any God), the premise was proposed, "absence of proof can be proof of absence", accompanied by an analogy that absence of proof of the presence of a brick wall is proof of absence of a brick wall. This argument is easily refuted and the analogy fails.
Absence of proof is not proof of absence, but why should we assume that a God exists if there is no proof? Occam's Razor proves this. Assuming that something is true without proof is just as illogical as saying that absence of proof can be proof of absence.
That kind of illogical statement scares me. It scares me for the intellectual health of mankind. If someone disagrees with reasons which are at least superficially valid, I understand.
My question is, do most people find these arguments to be more of a desperate attempt to avoid a higher being or is it a convincing argument to most?
Not necessarily convincing in and of itself, but if the question we're asking is "is it logical to assume God exists" rather than "Does God exist," than I find it to be a convincing argument.

I was not asking assent to the existence of God on this topic. Basically, you agreed with me, that that argument is not valid. Thank you for being reasonable.

By using that logic you must believe in every religion and their God.
PureX
Posts: 1,525
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 3:00:51 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 2:32:37 PM, Throwback wrote:
In a recent discussion on the existence of God (any God), the premise was proposed, "absence of proof can be proof of absence", accompanied by an analogy that absence of proof of the presence of a brick wall is proof of absence of a brick wall. This argument is easily refuted and the analogy fails.

That kind of illogical statement scares me. It scares me for the intellectual health of mankind. If someone disagrees with reasons which are at least superficially valid, I understand.

My question is, do most people find these arguments to be more of a desperate attempt to avoid a higher being or is it a convincing argument to most?

No. It is merely an attempt at explaining why the atheist has taken such a position on the subject.

The absence of proof is evidence in favor of the antagonist's position, but it is not proof of anything. Which is why a lot of atheists are only atheist in regards to the specific theistic proposals they encounter, but do not hold to atheism as a universal anti-theistic proposition.
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 3:13:43 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 3:00:51 PM, PureX wrote:
At 7/23/2016 2:32:37 PM, Throwback wrote:
In a recent discussion on the existence of God (any God), the premise was proposed, "absence of proof can be proof of absence", accompanied by an analogy that absence of proof of the presence of a brick wall is proof of absence of a brick wall. This argument is easily refuted and the analogy fails.

That kind of illogical statement scares me. It scares me for the intellectual health of mankind. If someone disagrees with reasons which are at least superficially valid, I understand.

My question is, do most people find these arguments to be more of a desperate attempt to avoid a higher being or is it a convincing argument to most?

No. It is merely an attempt at explaining why the atheist has taken such a position on the subject.

The absence of proof is evidence in favor of the antagonist's position, but it is not proof of anything. Which is why a lot of atheists are only atheist in regards to the specific theistic proposals they encounter, but do not hold to atheism as a universal anti-theistic proposition.

Another reasonable position in response. Thank you! I am disappointed by the number of people, even using this site, who cannot make reasoned, logical position statements. Whether we agree on the secondary issue of the existence of God or not, thank you for being thoughtful and seeing that laok of proof is not proof of anything.
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 3:18:51 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 3:13:43 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:00:51 PM, PureX wrote:
At 7/23/2016 2:32:37 PM, Throwback wrote:
In a recent discussion on the existence of God (any God), the premise was proposed, "absence of proof can be proof of absence", accompanied by an analogy that absence of proof of the presence of a brick wall is proof of absence of a brick wall. This argument is easily refuted and the analogy fails.

That kind of illogical statement scares me. It scares me for the intellectual health of mankind. If someone disagrees with reasons which are at least superficially valid, I understand.

My question is, do most people find these arguments to be more of a desperate attempt to avoid a higher being or is it a convincing argument to most?

No. It is merely an attempt at explaining why the atheist has taken such a position on the subject.

The absence of proof is evidence in favor of the antagonist's position, but it is not proof of anything. Which is why a lot of atheists are only atheist in regards to the specific theistic proposals they encounter, but do not hold to atheism as a universal anti-theistic proposition.

Another reasonable position in response. Thank you! I am disappointed by the number of people, even using this site, who cannot make reasoned, logical position statements. Whether we agree on the secondary issue of the existence of God or not, thank you for being thoughtful and seeing that laok of proof is not proof of anything.

What the hell is laok ?
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 3:21:17 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 2:32:37 PM, Throwback wrote:
In a recent discussion on the existence of God (any God), the premise was proposed, "absence of proof can be proof of absence", accompanied by an analogy that absence of proof of the presence of a brick wall is proof of absence of a brick wall. This argument is easily refuted and the analogy fails.

That kind of illogical statement scares me. It scares me for the intellectual health of mankind. If someone disagrees with reasons which are at least superficially valid, I understand.

My question is, do most people find these arguments to be more of a desperate attempt to avoid a higher being or is it a convincing argument to most?
The only claim of the existence of gods is made by people who can provide no evidence to support their claims.
The only logical, intelligent reaction is to reject such claims.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 3:23:31 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 3:18:51 PM, Deb-8-A-Bull wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:13:43 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:00:51 PM, PureX wrote:
At 7/23/2016 2:32:37 PM, Throwback wrote:
In a recent discussion on the existence of God (any God), the premise was proposed, "absence of proof can be proof of absence", accompanied by an analogy that absence of proof of the presence of a brick wall is proof of absence of a brick wall. This argument is easily refuted and the analogy fails.

That kind of illogical statement scares me. It scares me for the intellectual health of mankind. If someone disagrees with reasons which are at least superficially valid, I understand.

My question is, do most people find these arguments to be more of a desperate attempt to avoid a higher being or is it a convincing argument to most?

No. It is merely an attempt at explaining why the atheist has taken such a position on the subject.

The absence of proof is evidence in favor of the antagonist's position, but it is not proof of anything. Which is why a lot of atheists are only atheist in regards to the specific theistic proposals they encounter, but do not hold to atheism as a universal anti-theistic proposition.

Another reasonable position in response. Thank you! I am disappointed by the number of people, even using this site, who cannot make reasoned, logical position statements. Whether we agree on the secondary issue of the existence of God or not, thank you for being thoughtful and seeing that laok of proof is not proof of anything.

What the hell is laok ?

"lack" not being perfect, as you are, I hit the wrong key on the keyboard.
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 3:26:41 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Advancement in science is posing a B I G threat to atheism.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
PureX
Posts: 1,525
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 3:27:11 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
We humans have very little "proof" of our truisms. What we have is a lot of reasonable probabilities derived from experience, and the faith to 'believe' in those probable results.

We are often wrong, though, and then we suffer the consequences.
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 3:30:21 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 3:26:41 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Advancement in science is posing a B I G threat to atheism.
Let us know just as soon as science provides evidence of the existence of Zeus.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 3:32:16 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
The premise demands the acceptance of another unprovable and unrealistic belief: there is no fact outside those things which mankind can prove. Unless one is willing to let go of the ridiculous belief that mankind has now acquired all evidence of all things, there is no way to reason with one who refuses to admit the logical idea there can be something greater than yourself. Lower animals do not have the capacity to prove the existence to one another of the existence of man. We are here nevertheless. If you will not accept the principle of prima causa, you are destined to be an atheist until the moment after your death.
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
illegalcombat
Posts: 632
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 3:34:49 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 2:32:37 PM, Throwback wrote:
In a recent discussion on the existence of God (any God), the premise was proposed, "absence of proof can be proof of absence", accompanied by an analogy that absence of proof of the presence of a brick wall is proof of absence of a brick wall. This argument is easily refuted and the analogy fails.

That kind of illogical statement scares me. It scares me for the intellectual health of mankind. If someone disagrees with reasons which are at least superficially valid, I understand.

My question is, do most people find these arguments to be more of a desperate attempt to avoid a higher being or is it a convincing argument to most?

Absence of evidence can be used in a probability argument that X probably does not exist.
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 3:35:58 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 3:34:49 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 7/23/2016 2:32:37 PM, Throwback wrote:
In a recent discussion on the existence of God (any God), the premise was proposed, "absence of proof can be proof of absence", accompanied by an analogy that absence of proof of the presence of a brick wall is proof of absence of a brick wall. This argument is easily refuted and the analogy fails.

That kind of illogical statement scares me. It scares me for the intellectual health of mankind. If someone disagrees with reasons which are at least superficially valid, I understand.

My question is, do most people find these arguments to be more of a desperate attempt to avoid a higher being or is it a convincing argument to most?

Absence of evidence can be used in a probability argument that X probably does not exist.

I agree. You are being reasonable.
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 3:42:55 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 3:30:21 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:26:41 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Advancement in science is posing a B I G threat to atheism.
Let us know just as soon as science provides evidence of the existence of Zeus.

I will call you.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 3:46:37 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 3:35:58 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:34:49 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 7/23/2016 2:32:37 PM, Throwback wrote:
In a recent discussion on the existence of God (any God), the premise was proposed, "absence of proof can be proof of absence", accompanied by an analogy that absence of proof of the presence of a brick wall is proof of absence of a brick wall. This argument is easily refuted and the analogy fails.

That kind of illogical statement scares me. It scares me for the intellectual health of mankind. If someone disagrees with reasons which are at least superficially valid, I understand.

My question is, do most people find these arguments to be more of a desperate attempt to avoid a higher being or is it a convincing argument to most?

Absence of evidence can be used in a probability argument that X probably does not exist.

I agree. You are being reasonable.
The existence of gods is quite simply just a claim.
A claim without evidentiary support.
I claim that invisible Martians exist and am prepared to supply EXACTLY the same evidence as the gods claimers provide for their claims.
You have no choice but to believe my claim.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 3:49:38 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 3:32:16 PM, Throwback wrote:
The premise demands the acceptance of another unprovable and unrealistic belief: there is no fact outside those things which mankind can prove. Unless one is willing to let go of the ridiculous belief that mankind has now acquired all evidence of all things, there is no way to reason with one who refuses to admit the logical idea there can be something greater than yourself. Lower animals do not have the capacity to prove the existence to one another of the existence of man. We are here nevertheless. If you will not accept the principle of prima causa, you are destined to be an atheist until the moment after your death.

What the crap . Are you claiming now that there for you is a moment after your death.
Not even post 10 and you claim God's real , and now you think you could possibly know what happens after you die.
You can spell alright . But it's you that is not logical.
(you will be a Athiests until the moment after your death. )
Your funny. It's like you are getting this information from a book of sorts or somewhere.
By post 20 you will be able to tell us all about heaven . Can't wait.
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 3:54:06 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 3:46:37 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:35:58 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:34:49 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 7/23/2016 2:32:37 PM, Throwback wrote:
In a recent discussion on the existence of God (any God), the premise was proposed, "absence of proof can be proof of absence", accompanied by an analogy that absence of proof of the presence of a brick wall is proof of absence of a brick wall. This argument is easily refuted and the analogy fails.

That kind of illogical statement scares me. It scares me for the intellectual health of mankind. If someone disagrees with reasons which are at least superficially valid, I understand.

My question is, do most people find these arguments to be more of a desperate attempt to avoid a higher being or is it a convincing argument to most?

Absence of evidence can be used in a probability argument that X probably does not exist.

I agree. You are being reasonable.
The existence of gods is quite simply just a claim.
A claim without evidentiary support.
I claim that invisible Martians exist and am prepared to supply EXACTLY the same evidence as the gods claimers provide for their claims.
You have no choice but to believe my claim.

You did not understand my point; or, you did not wish to understand my point. Either way, that is another failed analogy. More to the point would have been:
"I claim that invisible Martians exist and am prepared to supply EXACTLY the same evidence as the gods (sic) claimers provide for their claims.

Absence of proof there are no invisible Martians is not proof of absence of invisible Martians."

In which case I would have agreed. I do not claim there is proof there are no Martians based on the fact there is no proof of their existence.
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
dee-em
Posts: 6,466
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 3:59:10 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 2:32:37 PM, Throwback wrote:
In a recent discussion on the existence of God (any God), the premise was proposed, "absence of proof can be proof of absence", accompanied by an analogy that absence of proof of the presence of a brick wall is proof of absence of a brick wall. This argument is easily refuted and the analogy fails.

It sounds perfectly reasonable to me. We should expect that there should be some evidence of a brick wall if it existed. So, please go ahead and refute this position as you boast you can.

In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence.
--- Copi, Introduction to Logic (1953), p. 95

That kind of illogical statement scares me.

You have asserted it is illogical and that is all. You'll have to do better than that.

It scares me for the intellectual health of mankind.

People who believe in things without evidence (on blind faith alone) scare me much, much more.

If someone disagrees with reasons which are at least superficially valid, I understand.

My question is, do most people find these arguments to be more of a desperate attempt to avoid a higher being or is it a convincing argument to most?

Atheists could only avoid a higher being if there were some evidence for one. Since that evidence is not forthcoming (you guys have had thousands of years) the skeptical atheist position is the only logical one to take.

If someone were to assert that there is an elephant on the quad, then the failure to observe an elephant there would be good reason to think that there is no elephant there. But if someone were to assert that there is a flea on the quad, then one's failure to observe it there would not constitute good evidence that there is no flea on the quad. The salient difference between these two cases is that in the one, but not the other, we should expect to see some evidence of the entity if in fact it existed. Moreover, the justification conferred in such cases will be proportional to the ratio between the amount of evidence that we do have and the amount that we should expect to have if the entity existed. If the ratio is small, then little justification is conferred on the belief that the entity does not exist. [For example] in the absence of evidence rendering the existence of some entity probable, we are justified in believing that it does not exist, provided that (1) it is not something that might leave no traces and (2) we have comprehensively surveyed the area where the evidence would be found if the entity existed...
--- J.P. Moreland and W.L. Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview

If the Abrahamic God really created the universe as per Genesis then we might reasonably expect that there would be evidence of such an event. Instead we have found that the story bears no relationship with reality and is in fact based on the flawed and primitive cosmology of a bronze-age people. God in the process of creating the heavens and the earth should have left a trace. He hasn't. Therefore, according to the two esteemed gentlemen above, we are perfectly entitled to reach the conclusion that there are no gods.
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 4:00:00 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
Too many people are finding it difficult to stay on topic, attacking the belief in God rather than addressing the fallacy of the argument in question. To those on both sides of the issue who can actually stay focused, thank you very much!
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,208
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 4:06:00 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 3:32:16 PM, Throwback wrote:
The premise demands the acceptance of another unprovable and unrealistic belief: there is no fact outside those things which mankind can prove.

Wait, what do you mean -another-?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 4:08:52 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 2:32:37 PM, Throwback wrote:
In a recent discussion on the existence of God (any God), the premise was proposed, "absence of proof can be proof of absence", accompanied by an analogy that absence of proof of the presence of a brick wall is proof of absence of a brick wall. This argument is easily refuted and the analogy fails.

Then, please do refute it and show why the analogy fails.

Here's another example, as well. Leprechauns riding unicorns in the Kentucky Derby has zero evidence to support the claim, therefore they are absent from the Kentucky Derby.

With either example, it can be agreed upon unanimously there is no brick wall or leprechauns riding unicorns.

That kind of illogical statement scares me. It scares me for the intellectual health of mankind. If someone disagrees with reasons which are at least superficially valid, I understand.

Are you saying that it is intellectually healthy to believe in something that has never been shown to exist? How does that benefit mankind exactly?

My question is, do most people find these arguments to be more of a desperate attempt to avoid a higher being or is it a convincing argument to most?

A higher being? Would that be a higher being that has never been shown to exist? And, if one has never been shown to exist, how is mankind going to unanimously agree of it's existence, or even speculate it's existence?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Throwback
Posts: 421
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 4:09:30 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 4:06:00 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:32:16 PM, Throwback wrote:
The premise demands the acceptance of another unprovable and unrealistic belief: there is no fact outside those things which mankind can prove.



Wait, what do you mean -another-?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

I mean the belief that absence of proof is proof of absence. I think you knew that. I think you are being intentionally dense.
When I respond with "OK" don't take it personally. I'm simply being appropriately dismissive.
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 4:10:24 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 3:54:06 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:46:37 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:35:58 PM, Throwback wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:34:49 PM, illegalcombat wrote:
At 7/23/2016 2:32:37 PM, Throwback wrote:
In a recent discussion on the existence of God (any God), the premise was proposed, "absence of proof can be proof of absence", accompanied by an analogy that absence of proof of the presence of a brick wall is proof of absence of a brick wall. This argument is easily refuted and the analogy fails.

That kind of illogical statement scares me. It scares me for the intellectual health of mankind. If someone disagrees with reasons which are at least superficially valid, I understand.

My question is, do most people find these arguments to be more of a desperate attempt to avoid a higher being or is it a convincing argument to most?

Absence of evidence can be used in a probability argument that X probably does not exist.

I agree. You are being reasonable.
The existence of gods is quite simply just a claim.
A claim without evidentiary support.
I claim that invisible Martians exist and am prepared to supply EXACTLY the same evidence as the gods claimers provide for their claims.
You have no choice but to believe my claim.

You did not understand my point; or, you did not wish to understand my point. Either way, that is another failed analogy. More to the point would have been:
"I claim that invisible Martians exist and am prepared to supply EXACTLY the same evidence as the gods (sic) claimers provide for their claims.

Absence of proof there are no invisible Martians is not proof of absence of invisible Martians."

In which case I would have agreed. I do not claim there is proof there are no Martians based on the fact there is no proof of their existence.
That is circular reasoning in a futile attempt to defend your CLAIM that gods exist.
Gods are the claim of men.
Men supply absolutely no evidence to support said claim and quite naturally intelligent, logical people reject the claim.
Your argument isn't even moot.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin