Total Posts:190|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

No evidence for the existence of God

Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2016 2:57:13 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
Willows has repeatedly asserted "There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God", you say my latest reply to him on this here:

http://www.debate.org...

I've asked him several times now to explain how he arrived at that conclusion, he's refused.

I've asked him to provide evidence that supports his assertion, again he's refused.

Ironically though he did point this out to me "A positive assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.".

I rest my case.
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2016 3:00:30 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/9/2016 2:57:13 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Willows has repeatedly asserted "There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God", you say my latest reply to him on this here:

http://www.debate.org...

I've asked him several times now to explain how he arrived at that conclusion, he's refused.

I've asked him to provide evidence that supports his assertion, again he's refused.

Ironically though he did point this out to me "A positive assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.".

I rest my case.

he asks u something and when u reply him he doesnt like it.. he wants to hear what in his head. wonderful guy.
Never fart near dog
dee-em
Posts: 6,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2016 9:21:33 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/9/2016 2:57:13 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Willows has repeatedly asserted "There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God", you say my latest reply to him on this here:

http://www.debate.org...

I've asked him several times now to explain how he arrived at that conclusion, he's refused.

He probably reached that conclusion from never seeing any evidence. If there were any, wouldn't theists be trotting it out every available opportunity? It would hardly be a secret.

I've asked him to provide evidence that supports his assertion, again he's refused.

How do you provide evidence for the lack of evidence?

Ironically though he did point this out to me "A positive assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.".

It's not ironic at all. He hasn't made a positive assertion. He is simply stating that there is no evidence. The positive assertion would be a theist claiming that they have some evidence.

I rest my case.

It needs work :-)
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2016 10:03:41 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
People who claim that there is no evidence of God either misunderstand what the definition of evidence is, or have never cognized an argument for God's existence.
Looncall
Posts: 463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2016 11:36:31 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/9/2016 10:03:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
People who claim that there is no evidence of God either misunderstand what the definition of evidence is, or have never cognized an argument for God's existence.

Well, I have seen several purported arguments for that. Without exception, they were unimpressive, but they did have a strong stink of scam about them.
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 3:52:14 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/9/2016 2:57:13 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Willows has repeatedly asserted "There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God", you say my latest reply to him on this here:

http://www.debate.org...

I've asked him several times now to explain how he arrived at that conclusion, he's refused.

I've asked him to provide evidence that supports his assertion, again he's refused.

Ironically though he did point this out to me "A positive assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.".

I rest my case.
The positive assertion is that gods exist.
The claimant has never provided evidence to support the assertion.
The assertion is therefore dismissed.
Ergo there are no gods.
Evidence supplied by the positive claimant.
Your case fails.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 4:00:04 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/9/2016 2:57:13 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:


Would you care to give some evidence? Keep in mind it's only valuable if it can withstand scrutiny.
Willows
Posts: 2,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 1:36:06 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/9/2016 2:57:13 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Willows has repeatedly asserted "There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God", you say my latest reply to him on this here:

http://www.debate.org...

I've asked him several times now to explain how he arrived at that conclusion, he's refused.

I've asked him to provide evidence that supports his assertion, again he's refused.

Ironically though he did point this out to me "A positive assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.".

I rest my case.

I have explained to you a number of times.

Having noted the nature of your posts you will argue any point that threatens your lost cause illogically since you know very well that you are well and truly snookered.

That's the nature of religion for you.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 1:57:08 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/9/2016 9:21:33 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/9/2016 2:57:13 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:

Willows has repeatedly asserted "There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God", you say my latest reply to him on this here:

http://www.debate.org...

Willows is a troll DH.

I've asked him several times now to explain how he arrived at that conclusion, he's refused.

He probably reached that conclusion from never seeing any evidence.

So he would be logical in believing that there is no life in the universe other than on Earth? Have you seen evidence for any?

If there were any, wouldn't theists be trotting it out every available opportunity? It would hardly be a secret.

It isn't a secret to people who open their eyes. What "Secret" is known by more than 3 billion people?

I've asked him to provide evidence that supports his assertion, again he's refused.

How do you provide evidence for the lack of evidence?

And yet he believes without any evidence! So he would admit that he has no evidence for his belief, but is condemning the theist for what he claims the theist does, that he admit he does.

Ironically though he did point this out to me "A positive assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.".

It's not ironic at all. He hasn't made a positive assertion. He is simply stating that there is no evidence. The positive assertion would be a theist claiming that they have some evidence.

lol. His positive assertion is that no evidence exists. He is asserting the non-existence of evidence. It is very ironic, as he (through you) admits he has no evidence for his positive belief.

I rest my case.

It needs work :-)

No, it needs a burial.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 2:22:52 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/9/2016 2:57:13 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Willows has repeatedly asserted "There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God", you say my latest reply to him on this here:

http://www.debate.org...

I've asked him several times now to explain how he arrived at that conclusion, he's refused.

I've asked him to provide evidence that supports his assertion, again he's refused.

Ironically though he did point this out to me "A positive assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.".

I rest my case.

Breaking news, believers stoop to new lows in their desperate attempts to gain attention for their irrational beliefs.
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
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 3:03:24 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 1:57:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 10/9/2016 9:21:33 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/9/2016 2:57:13 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:

Willows has repeatedly asserted "There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God", you say my latest reply to him on this here:

http://www.debate.org...

Willows is a troll DH.

I've asked him several times now to explain how he arrived at that conclusion, he's refused.

He probably reached that conclusion from never seeing any evidence.

So he would be logical in believing that there is no life in the universe other than on Earth? Have you seen evidence for any?

That seems like a tacit acknowledgement of lack of evidence for gods.

If there were any, wouldn't theists be trotting it out every available opportunity? It would hardly be a secret.

It isn't a secret to people who open their eyes. What "Secret" is known by more than 3 billion people?

Popularity of a belief isn't evidence.

I've asked him to provide evidence that supports his assertion, again he's refused.

How do you provide evidence for the lack of evidence?

And yet he believes without any evidence! So he would admit that he has no evidence for his belief, but is condemning the theist for what he claims the theist does, that he admit he does.

In regads to the claims of the existence of gods: either there is evidence (and someone should provide it), or there isn't and the claims are dismissed.

I think you're addressing a different claim: god does not exist - which is not what the OP is about.


Ironically though he did point this out to me "A positive assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.".

It's not ironic at all. He hasn't made a positive assertion. He is simply stating that there is no evidence. The positive assertion would be a theist claiming that they have some evidence.

lol. His positive assertion is that no evidence exists. He is asserting the non-existence of evidence. It is very ironic, as he (through you) admits he has no evidence for his positive belief.

Semantics. "HahA! You have no evidence there is no evidence!!" He doesn't need any. If there were evidence (for the existence of god), it is either provided by the original claimant (believer) or the statement "there is no evidence for god" is justified.

I rest my case.

It needs work :-)

No, it needs a burial.

Also, keep in mind, I think Willows is getting ahead of himself. (We need to know what is being claimed before we can decide if it exists, and definitions of "god" are arbitraliy pulled out of thin air.) So, I'm not responding to blindly defend him, but I was hoping you would consider where he is actually coming from - at least as I understand 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
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 3:38:18 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/9/2016 2:57:13 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Willows has repeatedly asserted "There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God", you say my latest reply to him on this here:

http://www.debate.org...

I've asked him several times now to explain how he arrived at that conclusion, he's refused.

I've asked him to provide evidence that supports his assertion, again he's refused.

Ironically though he did point this out to me "A positive assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.".

I rest my case.

By that logic, you would need to provide evidence that he has no evidence that you (or believers in general) have no evidence. This is simply absurd.

Without someone saying "god exists" there wouldn't be anyone saying "prove it". If the original claim cannot be substantiated you don't get to push the burden off on the fellow questioning it.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...
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
Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 3:52:59 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 3:38:18 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/9/2016 2:57:13 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Willows has repeatedly asserted "There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God", you say my latest reply to him on this here:

http://www.debate.org...

I've asked him several times now to explain how he arrived at that conclusion, he's refused.

I've asked him to provide evidence that supports his assertion, again he's refused.

Ironically though he did point this out to me "A positive assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.".

I rest my case.

By that logic, you would need to provide evidence that he has no evidence that you (or believers in general) have no evidence. This is simply absurd.

Without someone saying "god exists" there wouldn't be anyone saying "prove it". If the original claim cannot be substantiated you don't get to push the burden off on the fellow questioning it.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

I'm on the OP's side on this one due to the strong nature and lack of specificity of the original statement. Willows is brazenly asserting a universal truth about the world, and it's not unreasonable to question how he knows this and hold him accountable for this. Until such time, the claim should simply be rejected.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 4:52:35 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 3:03:24 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/10/2016 1:57:08 PM, ethang5 wrote:
At 10/9/2016 9:21:33 PM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/9/2016 2:57:13 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:

Willows has repeatedly asserted "There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God", you say my latest reply to him on this here:

http://www.debate.org...

Willows is a troll DH.

I've asked him several times now to explain how he arrived at that conclusion, he's refused.

He probably reached that conclusion from never seeing any evidence.

So he would be logical in believing that there is no life in the universe other than on Earth? Have you seen evidence for any?

That seems like a tacit acknowledgement of lack of evidence for gods.

It seems that way to you because your bias causes you to think poorly. The idiot says the theist believes without any evidence, and then admits he believes without any evidence! Irony is the correct word. The theist does not agree that there exists no evidence for God. Atheists simply confuse their personal thoughts for reality.

If there were any, wouldn't theists be trotting it out every available opportunity? It would hardly be a secret.

It isn't a secret to people who open their eyes. What "Secret" is known by more than 3 billion people?

Popularity of a belief isn't evidence.

Stop being an idiot. No one is talking about belief or evidence. If it is known by more than half the planet, it cannot rationally be called a "secret". Words mean things.

I've asked him to provide evidence that supports his assertion, again he's refused.

How do you provide evidence for the lack of evidence?

And yet he believes without any evidence! So he would admit that he has no evidence for his belief, but is condemning the theist for what he claims the theist does, that he admit he does.

In regads to the claims of the existence of gods: either there is evidence (and someone should provide it), or there isn't and the claims are dismissed.

Dismissing a claim is not the same as affirming the counter claim. It is logical to withhold belief when there is no evidence, it is illogical to form a positive belief on a lack of evidence. That is why though there is not one shred of evidence for extra-terrestrial life, no scientist worth his salt will tell you that he believes there is no life in the universe other then on Earth.

I think you're addressing a different claim: god does not exist - which is not what the OP is about.

That is the claim you are knee-jerking to. If the OP has no evidence for his belief, that belief is irrational, and he should not throw stones at theists he thinks live in glass houses.

Ironically though he did point this out to me "A positive assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.".

It's not ironic at all. He hasn't made a positive assertion. He is simply stating that there is no evidence. The positive assertion would be a theist claiming that they have some evidence.

lol. His positive assertion is that no evidence exists. He is asserting the non-existence of evidence. It is very ironic, as he (through you) admits he has no evidence for his positive belief.

Semantics. "HahA! You have no evidence there is no evidence!!" He doesn't need any. If there were evidence (for the existence of god),....

Wait... is the OP now about the existence of God? You said it wasn't.

Does he have any evidence for his positive claim? It isn't semantics. It is fact. Any logical person knows that the rational position is, "I don't know if any evidence for God exists, but I have never come across any." Rather than the illogical positive claim, "There exists no evidence for God."

....it is either provided by the original claimant (believer) or the statement "there is no evidence for god" is justified.

The claimant is not saying, "I have seen no evidence for God", he is going further and making a positive claim that "there exists no evidence for God." How does he know this? There was once no evidence for gravitational waves. Did that evidence just come into existence, or does the fact that we had no evidence not mean there existed no evidence? He is wrong and his claim is illogical.

I rest my case.

It needs work :-)

No, it needs a burial.

Also, keep in mind, I think Willows is getting ahead of himself. (We need to know what is being claimed before we can decide if it exists, and definitions of "god" are arbitraliy pulled out of thin air.) So, I'm not responding to blindly defend him, but I was hoping you would consider where he is actually coming from - at least as I understand it.

He is free to believe anything he wants, but he, and most other atheists, should stop pretending that....
1. Their claim is logical
2. That it is not a positive claim,
3. that they don't contradict the principle they use to make the claim every time they say they believe life exist somewhere else in the universe.

Logic will be required here.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 6:00:18 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 4:52:35 PM, ethang5 wrote:

He probably reached that conclusion from never seeing any evidence.

So he would be logical in believing that there is no life in the universe other than on Earth? Have you seen evidence for any?

That seems like a tacit acknowledgement of lack of evidence for gods.

It seems that way to you because your bias causes you to think poorly. The idiot says the theist believes without any evidence, and then admits he believes without any evidence! Irony is the correct word. The theist does not agree that there exists no evidence for God. Atheists simply confuse their personal thoughts for reality.

You're comparing evidence for extraterrestrial life (of which we have none) to evidence for god. It is a bad analogy if you believe there is evidence for god. That's all I'm saying.

If there were any, wouldn't theists be trotting it out every available opportunity? It would hardly be a secret.

It isn't a secret to people who open their eyes. What "Secret" is known by more than 3 billion people?

Popularity of a belief isn't evidence.

Stop being an idiot. No one is talking about belief or evidence. If it is known by more than half the planet, it cannot rationally be called a "secret". Words mean things.

Yes, and you're focusing on one word instead of the meaning of the entire sentence.

I've asked him to provide evidence that supports his assertion, again he's refused.

How do you provide evidence for the lack of evidence?

And yet he believes without any evidence! So he would admit that he has no evidence for his belief, but is condemning the theist for what he claims the theist does, that he admit he does.

In regads to the claims of the existence of gods: either there is evidence (and someone should provide it), or there isn't and the claims are dismissed.

Dismissing a claim is not the same as affirming the counter claim.

Agreed.

It is logical to withhold belief when there is no evidence, it is illogical to form a positive belief on a lack of evidence.

I have no evidence my car will explode when I turn the key, and I am completely justified in accepting that is not a serious possibility. It is a matter of practicality. Moving through the world entertaining every possibility (evidence has not squashed) is not reasonable.

I think you're addressing a different claim: god does not exist - which is not what the OP is about.

That is the claim you are knee-jerking to. If the OP has no evidence for his belief, that belief is irrational, and he should not throw stones at theists he thinks live in glass houses.

I don't accept "there is no evidence for god" as a claim. It is a response. You don't claim something doesn't exist unless it has already been claimed that it does.

Ironically though he did point this out to me "A positive assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.".

It's not ironic at all. He hasn't made a positive assertion. He is simply stating that there is no evidence. The positive assertion would be a theist claiming that they have some evidence.

lol. His positive assertion is that no evidence exists. He is asserting the non-existence of evidence. It is very ironic, as he (through you) admits he has no evidence for his positive belief.

Semantics. "HahA! You have no evidence there is no evidence!!" He doesn't need any. If there were evidence (for the existence of god),....

Wait... is the OP now about the existence of God? You said it wasn't.

Actually, I said it wasn't about the claim "God does not exist".

At any rate, my statement above is about evidence (or lack thereof), and if you follow where continuing this trend leads it points out why shifting the burden of proof is problematic.

Does he have any evidence for his positive claim? It isn't semantics. It is fact. Any logical person knows that the rational position is, "I don't know if any evidence for God exists, but I have never come across any." Rather than the illogical positive claim, "There exists no evidence for God."

"Evidence" isn't a universal term. It is the "available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid". We must know about it before it can be considered evidence.

....it is either provided by the original claimant (believer) or the statement "there is no evidence for god" is justified.

The claimant is not saying, "I have seen no evidence for God", he is going further and making a positive claim that "there exists no evidence for God." How does he know this? There was once no evidence for gravitational waves. Did that evidence just come into existence, or does the fact that we had no evidence not mean there existed no evidence? He is wrong and his claim is illogical.

See definition of evidence above.

I rest my case.

It needs work :-)

No, it needs a burial.

Also, keep in mind, I think Willows is getting ahead of himself. (We need to know what is being claimed before we can decide if it exists, and definitions of "god" are arbitraliy pulled out of thin air.) So, I'm not responding to blindly defend him, but I was hoping you would consider where he is actually coming from - at least as I understand it.

He is free to believe anything he wants, but he, and most other atheists, should stop pretending that....
1. Their claim is logical
2. That it is not a positive claim,

Are we still taking about lack of evidence?

3. that they don't contradict the principle they use to make the claim every time they say they believe life exist somewhere else in the universe.

As pointed out earlier, "there is no evidence for god" does not stand alone and makes sense only as a response. No one is claiming "there is no evidence for furgarb", and, no doubt, that's because no one advocates for it! And even if someone uttered such a statement, it would be true since we don't know what furgarb is and, as such, have no idea what would constitute evidence.

Logic will be required here.
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: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 7:48:02 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 3:52:59 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:38:18 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/9/2016 2:57:13 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Willows has repeatedly asserted "There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God", you say my latest reply to him on this here:

http://www.debate.org...

I've asked him several times now to explain how he arrived at that conclusion, he's refused.

I've asked him to provide evidence that supports his assertion, again he's refused.

Ironically though he did point this out to me "A positive assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.".

I rest my case.

By that logic, you would need to provide evidence that he has no evidence that you (or believers in general) have no evidence. This is simply absurd.

Without someone saying "god exists" there wouldn't be anyone saying "prove it". If the original claim cannot be substantiated you don't get to push the burden off on the fellow questioning it.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

I'm on the OP's side on this one due to the strong nature and lack of specificity of the original statement. Willows is brazenly asserting a universal truth about the world, and it's not unreasonable to question how he knows this and hold him accountable for this. Until such time, the claim should simply be rejected.

Don't get me wrong, I consider the universal claim "God doesn't exist" to be absurd, but the OP isn't attacking that claim. He is attacking "there is no evidence for god". This is a true statement since evidence is information/facts that are available/known. It cant be evidence if we don't know about it.

Plus, asking for evidence of 'no evidence' seems counter-intuitive, no?

Also, I didn't get a notification on your reply.
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
Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 8:48:31 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 7:48:02 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:52:59 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:38:18 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/9/2016 2:57:13 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Willows has repeatedly asserted "There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God", you say my latest reply to him on this here:

http://www.debate.org...

I've asked him several times now to explain how he arrived at that conclusion, he's refused.

I've asked him to provide evidence that supports his assertion, again he's refused.

Ironically though he did point this out to me "A positive assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.".

I rest my case.

By that logic, you would need to provide evidence that he has no evidence that you (or believers in general) have no evidence. This is simply absurd.

Without someone saying "god exists" there wouldn't be anyone saying "prove it". If the original claim cannot be substantiated you don't get to push the burden off on the fellow questioning it.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

I'm on the OP's side on this one due to the strong nature and lack of specificity of the original statement. Willows is brazenly asserting a universal truth about the world, and it's not unreasonable to question how he knows this and hold him accountable for this. Until such time, the claim should simply be rejected.

Don't get me wrong, I consider the universal claim "God doesn't exist" to be absurd, but the OP isn't attacking that claim. He is attacking "there is no evidence for god". This is a true statement since evidence is information/facts that are available/known. It cant be evidence if we don't know about it.

This is messy, and it's difficult to express the lack of evidence without putting it into an assertive form. I think the OP is directly attacking the claim that was quoted and the way Willows went about dealing with the challenge. On the core issue, my opinion may be different. And humans don't have a collective conscious, so it's hard to determined whether "we" actually have evidence or not in any "no evidence whatsoever" way.

Plus, asking for evidence of 'no evidence' seems counter-intuitive, no?

At face value, perhaps. But then we get into the "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" in cases where evidence should be expected. Willows seems to being referring to general God notions, so perhaps mentioning some failed attempts to attain said evidence would at least be something.

Also, I didn't get a notification on your reply.

DDO recognizes my unimportance. :(
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,136
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/10/2016 11:12:00 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 8:48:31 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/10/2016 7:48:02 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:52:59 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:38:18 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/9/2016 2:57:13 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Willows has repeatedly asserted "There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God", you say my latest reply to him on this here:

http://www.debate.org...

I've asked him several times now to explain how he arrived at that conclusion, he's refused.

I've asked him to provide evidence that supports his assertion, again he's refused.

Ironically though he did point this out to me "A positive assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.".

I rest my case.

By that logic, you would need to provide evidence that he has no evidence that you (or believers in general) have no evidence. This is simply absurd.

Without someone saying "god exists" there wouldn't be anyone saying "prove it". If the original claim cannot be substantiated you don't get to push the burden off on the fellow questioning it.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

I'm on the OP's side on this one due to the strong nature and lack of specificity of the original statement. Willows is brazenly asserting a universal truth about the world, and it's not unreasonable to question how he knows this and hold him accountable for this. Until such time, the claim should simply be rejected.

Don't get me wrong, I consider the universal claim "God doesn't exist" to be absurd, but the OP isn't attacking that claim. He is attacking "there is no evidence for god". This is a true statement since evidence is information/facts that are available/known. It cant be evidence if we don't know about it.

This is messy, and it's difficult to express the lack of evidence without putting it into an assertive form. I think the OP is directly attacking the claim that was quoted and the way Willows went about dealing with the challenge. On the core issue, my opinion may be different. And humans don't have a collective conscious, so it's hard to determined whether "we" actually have evidence or not in any "no evidence whatsoever" way.

That seems more or less equivalent to saying "maybe there is evidence, so you could be wrong" type of argument. To make it worse, the OP is shirking his own burden to call Willows out, but I've already said that in another post so I'll let it be.

Plus, asking for evidence of 'no evidence' seems counter-intuitive, no?

At face value, perhaps. But then we get into the "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" in cases where evidence should be expected. Willows seems to being referring to general God notions, so perhaps mentioning some failed attempts to attain said evidence would at least be something.

True.

Also, I didn't get a notification on your reply.

DDO recognizes my unimportance. :(

LOL!
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
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 12:45:48 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 4:52:35 PM, ethang5 wrote:
If it is known by more than half the planet,
What are you claiming is known?
bulproof
Posts: 25,303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 12:51:54 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 4:52:35 PM, ethang5 wrote:

He is free to believe anything he wants, but he, and most other atheists, should stop pretending that....
1. Their claim is logical
It's the rejection of your claim for very logical reason ergo you supply no supporting evidence.
2. That it is not a positive claim,
It's a rejection of your claim ergo not a positive claim.
3. that they don't contradict the principle they use to make the claim every time they say they believe life exist somewhere else in the universe.
Are you making this claim?
Logic will be required here.
Buy a bucketful from your witchdoctor.
PrizeBeatz1
Posts: 48
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 2:32:54 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
There is evidence of God. If we look at all the outer space out there on clear night we can have all the evidence we want. God is infinite and eternal. Also, if we practice long and hard enough to still the mind we have an opportunity to feel and know without doubt that we are one with infinite eternity. In fact, doing so is necessary for the well-being of, not only ourselves, but the rest of humanity and its future.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 2:58:38 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/9/2016 2:57:13 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Willows has repeatedly asserted "There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God", you say my latest reply to him on this here:

http://www.debate.org...

I've asked him several times now to explain how he arrived at that conclusion, he's refused.

I've asked him to provide evidence that supports his assertion, again he's refused.

Ironically though he did point this out to me "A positive assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.".

I rest my case.

If you believe in a deistic, non-interventionist God, there would be no evidence other than the cosmological argument.

If you believe in an interventionist God, there would be evidence of intervention. The terrible things that happen to innocent people is evidence that intervention by a good god does not exist.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 3:00:57 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/9/2016 10:03:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
People who claim that there is no evidence of God either misunderstand what the definition of evidence is, or have never cognized an argument for God's existence.

If you believe in a deistic, non-interventionist God, there would be no evidence other than the cosmological argument.

If you believe in an interventionist God, there would need to be evidence of intervention. The terrible things that happen to innocent people is evidence that intervention by a good god does not exist.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 3:02:39 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/9/2016 2:57:13 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Willows has repeatedly asserted "There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God", you say my latest reply to him on this here:

http://www.debate.org...

I've asked him several times now to explain how he arrived at that conclusion, he's refused.

I've asked him to provide evidence that supports his assertion, again he's refused.

Ironically though he did point this out to me "A positive assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.".

Unicorns are purple and 20 meters tall. Prove me wrong.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 3:06:45 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 3:52:59 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:38:18 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/9/2016 2:57:13 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Willows has repeatedly asserted "There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God", you say my latest reply to him on this here:

http://www.debate.org...

I've asked him several times now to explain how he arrived at that conclusion, he's refused.

I've asked him to provide evidence that supports his assertion, again he's refused.

Ironically though he did point this out to me "A positive assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.".

I rest my case.

By that logic, you would need to provide evidence that he has no evidence that you (or believers in general) have no evidence. This is simply absurd.

Without someone saying "god exists" there wouldn't be anyone saying "prove it". If the original claim cannot be substantiated you don't get to push the burden off on the fellow questioning it.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

I'm on the OP's side on this one due to the strong nature and lack of specificity of the original statement. Willows is brazenly asserting a universal truth about the world, and it's not unreasonable to question how he knows this and hold him accountable for this. Until such time, the claim should simply be rejected.

Agreed. I think it is important to properly categorize knowledge, belief and suspicion.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 3:10:23 AM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 3:52:59 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:38:18 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/9/2016 2:57:13 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Willows has repeatedly asserted "There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God", you say my latest reply to him on this here:

http://www.debate.org...

I've asked him several times now to explain how he arrived at that conclusion, he's refused.

I've asked him to provide evidence that supports his assertion, again he's refused.

Ironically though he did point this out to me "A positive assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.".

I rest my case.

By that logic, you would need to provide evidence that he has no evidence that you (or believers in general) have no evidence. This is simply absurd.

Without someone saying "god exists" there wouldn't be anyone saying "prove it". If the original claim cannot be substantiated you don't get to push the burden off on the fellow questioning it.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

I'm on the OP's side on this one due to the strong nature and lack of specificity of the original statement. Willows is brazenly asserting a universal truth about the world, and it's not unreasonable to question how he knows this and hold him accountable for this. Until such time, the claim should simply be rejected.

Although, it should be important to note that Willows is correct in dismissing any claim that there is evidence for a god.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 1:42:31 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 11:12:00 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/10/2016 8:48:31 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/10/2016 7:48:02 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:52:59 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 10/10/2016 3:38:18 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/9/2016 2:57:13 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Willows has repeatedly asserted "There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of God", you say my latest reply to him on this here:

http://www.debate.org...

I've asked him several times now to explain how he arrived at that conclusion, he's refused.

I've asked him to provide evidence that supports his assertion, again he's refused.

Ironically though he did point this out to me "A positive assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.".

I rest my case.

By that logic, you would need to provide evidence that he has no evidence that you (or believers in general) have no evidence. This is simply absurd.

Without someone saying "god exists" there wouldn't be anyone saying "prove it". If the original claim cannot be substantiated you don't get to push the burden off on the fellow questioning it.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...

I'm on the OP's side on this one due to the strong nature and lack of specificity of the original statement. Willows is brazenly asserting a universal truth about the world, and it's not unreasonable to question how he knows this and hold him accountable for this. Until such time, the claim should simply be rejected.

Don't get me wrong, I consider the universal claim "God doesn't exist" to be absurd, but the OP isn't attacking that claim. He is attacking "there is no evidence for god". This is a true statement since evidence is information/facts that are available/known. It cant be evidence if we don't know about it.

This is messy, and it's difficult to express the lack of evidence without putting it into an assertive form. I think the OP is directly attacking the claim that was quoted and the way Willows went about dealing with the challenge. On the core issue, my opinion may be different. And humans don't have a collective conscious, so it's hard to determined whether "we" actually have evidence or not in any "no evidence whatsoever" way.

That seems more or less equivalent to saying "maybe there is evidence, so you could be wrong" type of argument. To make it worse, the OP is shirking his own burden to call Willows out, but I've already said that in another post so I'll let it be.

I prefer to acknowledge epistemological fallibility. Though, I do strongly disagree with anyone leveraging this to reduce their own burden, as well. Shades of presuppositionalism...
Looncall
Posts: 463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 2:19:32 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/11/2016 2:32:54 AM, PrizeBeatz1 wrote:
There is evidence of God. If we look at all the outer space out there on clear night we can have all the evidence we want. God is infinite and eternal. Also, if we practice long and hard enough to still the mind we have an opportunity to feel and know without doubt that we are one with infinite eternity. In fact, doing so is necessary for the well-being of, not only ourselves, but the rest of humanity and its future.

How does looking at the sky give evidence for god(s)? Please show your work.

As for the rest, it's clearly all in your head, and not at all convincing.
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
tarantula
Posts: 866
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 2:23:26 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/11/2016 2:32:54 AM, PrizeBeatz1 wrote:
There is evidence of God. If we look at all the outer space out there on clear night we can have all the evidence we want. God is infinite and eternal. Also, if we practice long and hard enough to still the mind we have an opportunity to feel and know without doubt that we are one with infinite eternity. In fact, doing so is necessary for the well-being of, not only ourselves, but the rest of humanity and its future.

In your mind, maybe, but that is not evidence of any god.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2016 2:55:52 PM
Posted: 2 months ago
At 10/10/2016 6:00:18 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 10/10/2016 4:52:35 PM, ethang5 wrote:

He probably reached that conclusion from never seeing any evidence.

So he would be logical in believing that there is no life in the universe other than on Earth? Have you seen evidence for any?

That seems like a tacit acknowledgement of lack of evidence for gods.

It seems that way to you because your bias causes you to think poorly. The idiot says the theist believes without any evidence, and then admits he believes without any evidence! Irony is the correct word. The theist does not agree that there exists no evidence for God. Atheists simply confuse their personal thoughts for reality.

You're comparing evidence for extraterrestrial life (of which we have none) to evidence for god.

No. I am comparing making a positive belief based on that supposed lack of evidence. No reasonable person thinks that because we currently have no evidence of extraterrestrial life, none exists. The same logical principle works with the evidence for God. The positive claim that God does not exist cannot rest on the lack of evidence for God.

It is a bad analogy if you believe there is evidence for god. That's all I'm saying.

You got the analogy wrong. Common error. For some reason, many people find analogies difficult.

If there were any, wouldn't theists be trotting it out every available opportunity? It would hardly be a secret.

It isn't a secret to people who open their eyes. What "Secret" is known by more than 3 billion people?

Popularity of a belief isn't evidence.

Stop being an idiot. No one is talking about belief or evidence. If it is known by more than half the planet, it cannot rationally be called a "secret". Words mean things.

Yes, and you're focusing on one word instead of the meaning of the entire sentence.

"If there were any,.....It would hardly be a secret." is his point. It isn't a secret, thus, his point is incoherent. The single word "secret" has a definite meaning.

I've asked him to provide evidence that supports his assertion, again he's refused.

How do you provide evidence for the lack of evidence?

And yet he believes without any evidence! So he would admit that he has no evidence for his belief, but is condemning the theist for what he claims the theist does, that he admit he does.

In regads to the claims of the existence of gods: either there is evidence (and someone should provide it), or there isn't and the claims are dismissed.

Dismissing a claim is not the same as affirming the counter claim.

Agreed.

And a counter-claim cannot be affirmed based on a lack of evidence for the original claim.

It is logical to withhold belief when there is no evidence, it is illogical to form a positive belief on a lack of evidence.

I have no evidence my car will explode when I turn the key, and I am completely justified in accepting that is not a serious possibility. It is a matter of practicality.

Yes, but there you aren't making a positive counter-claim. You are simply dismissing the the possibility that your car will explode. But if you go further and claim that the possibility of your car exploding cannot exist, you have stepped into the illogical world.

Moving through the world entertaining every possibility (evidence has not squashed) is not reasonable.

Which is why reasonable people say, "I don't know, so I have not made a determination." I am not asking to have a possibility entertained, I am saying that the counter-claim cannot be said to be true simply because no evidence currently exists for the original claim.

I think you're addressing a different claim: god does not exist - which is not what the OP is about.

That is the claim you are knee-jerking to. If the OP has no evidence for his belief, that belief is irrational, and he should not throw stones at theists he thinks live in glass houses.

I don't accept "there is no evidence for god" as a claim. It is a response. You don't claim something doesn't exist unless it has already been claimed that it does.

Ok, but that response does not justify the claim that God does not exist. Every atheist I've ever seen use that "response" has used it to mean, "God does not exist". There is no evidence for God is a logical (even if untrue) reason to withhold belief in God, but is an illogical and insufficient reason to believe there is no God.

Ironically though he did point this out to me "A positive assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.".

It's not ironic at all. He hasn't made a positive assertion. He is simply stating that there is no evidence. The positive assertion would be a theist claiming that they have some evidence.

lol. His positive assertion is that no evidence exists. He is asserting the non-existence of evidence. It is very ironic, as he (through you) admits he has no evidence for his positive belief.

Semantics. "HahA! You have no evidence there is no evidence!!" He doesn't need any. If there were evidence (for the existence of god),....

Wait... is the OP now about the existence of God? You said it wasn't.

Actually, I said it wasn't about the claim "God does not exist".

And yet the next words out of the atheists mouth is always, "Prove God exists."

At any rate, my statement above is about evidence (or lack thereof), and if you follow where continuing this trend leads it points out why shifting the burden of proof is problematic.

It need not be. The theist has the burden of proof with the positive claim, "God exists", and the atheists have the burden of proof for the positive claim, "God does not exist". They are different claims.

"Evidence" isn't a universal term. It is the "available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid". We must know about it before it can be considered evidence.

True. But that requires the atheist to open his eyes.

Also, keep in mind, I think Willows is getting ahead of himself. (We need to know what is being claimed before we can decide if it exists, and definitions of "god" are arbitraliy pulled out of thin air.) So, I'm not responding to blindly defend him, but I was hoping you would consider where he is actually coming from - at least as I understand it.

He is free to believe anything he wants, but he, and most other atheists, should stop pretending that....
1. Their claim is logical
2. That it is not a positive claim,

Are we still taking about lack of evidence?

Yes. "God does not exist because there exists no evidence for God." This is a positive and illogical claim.

3. that they don't contradict the principle they use to make the claim every time they say they believe life exist somewhere else in the universe.

As pointed out earlier, "there is no evidence for god" does not stand alone and makes sense only as a response.

Semantics. The response, "there is no evidence for god" does not contradict the claim, "God exists" as both could be true at the same time, thus it is not an honest response. Atheist use that response as a counter to the claim that "God exists". It isn't a counter.

So that response can only mean, "I have insufficient reason to believe God exists, but I also have insufficient reason to believe God doesn't exist." But the atheist goes on to claim that his "response" means, "God does not exist".

Illogical.