|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: I Know That God Does Not Exist | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TrueCreation Inactive Member
|
quote:Well, they needn't overturn anything we know from observation of our universe. It is conceivable that the existence of gods has nothing to do with our universe. quote:I don't see the problem with acknowledging that some statements of fact are unfalsifiable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1781 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined:
|
But its positive evidence nonetheless. Yes, that's what I'm saying. Conspicuous absence of evidence is positive evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18704 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.1
|
Crashfrog writes: Conspicuous absence of evidence is positive evidence. It all depends what you are trying to prove.
Wiki writes: The phrase "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" can be used as a shorthand rebuttal to the second form of the ignorance fallacy (i.e. P has never been absolutely proven and is therefore certainly false). Most often it is directed at any conclusion derived from null results in an experiment or from the non-detection of something. In other words, where one researcher may say their experiment suggests evidence of absence, another researcher might argue that the experiment failed to detect a phenomenon for other reasons. Edited by Phat, : added malarky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9624 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
Suppose I suspect that there are snakes in my garden. There are a number of things I could do to prove it; I could lay traps, I could turn over stones, I could search for discarded skin, I could look for snake poo, I could call in an expert etc etc.
But suppose I decided to spend 10 minutes looking in one corner and didn't find anything, then announced that there are no snakes in my garden because I found no evidence of snakes, that would be an example of the fallacy. But suppose I spent an entire year and used every known test for snakes - including stripping everything down to bare soil - but found none, the absense of evidence is then evidence of absense. Mankind has spent thousands of years looking for this God thing and the only evidence he's found has been in his own mind. God is absent.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18704 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
tangle writes: What if thats the only way God decided to reveal Himself?(Herself,Itself, etc) Mankind has spent thousands of years looking for this God thing and the only evidence he's found has been in his own mind. God is absent. Assuming a concept of communion, how would one tell whether God was entirely their own imagination or that they were communing with Him? Granted, not all of mankind has claimed to have found said Deity. If only one man claimed to have found it, would it count? Say we had a team of people searching for snakes in your garden. The only way to prove to everyone that the snakes were there would be physical evidence, right? But what if these snakes were invisible and nobody was certain whether or not they existed?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Hi Phat, long time no see.
When I'm working with patients they often have fix ideation that 'could' be true but there is no objective way of finding out. For example some people with social phobia believe other people with negatively judge them. When asked to list the evidence that leads them to that conclusion but to rule out anything that is based on hunches, intuitions or assumptions they have no reasonable choice but to say they have no reasonable evidence to conclude (in this case) that people are judging them. Eventually the 'echo' of the anxiety fades away. So if there is no actual evidence of God we must conclude for all intents and purposes that that is no difference in him not existing or not interacting with us in any way. The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18704 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 4.1 |
Larni writes: Perhaps I have anxiety over Him not being real. I feel that when I talk to Him (to an empty room) that He responds in a subtle way....if nothing else, its the saner calm altruistic part of my mind that calms my anxiety. I will admit that I need for Him to exist.
...Eventually the 'echo' of the anxiety fades away. So if there is no actual evidence of God we must conclude for all intents and purposes that that is no difference in him not existing or not interacting with us in any way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9624 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Phat writes: But what if these snakes were invisible and nobody was certain whether or not they existed? If these snakes are invisible and leave no evidence of themselves, it makes no difference whether they exist or not - for all practical purposes they don't exist. And given the total lack of any evidence, only the delusional would continue to believe in them.
Some of the searchers, however, claimed to have felt these snakes slithering on their arms. a few of the claimants were delusional or prone to exaggeration, yet at least one of them was an otherwise respectable intelligent man. These invisible snakes were said (by cultural mythos) to possess a venom that could cure many ailments. In fact, many people who were healed claimed that the snakes bit them as they were about to die. How do we separate fairy tales from folklore? The only rational way to treat people who believe things that are clearly untrue - like invisible snakes biting them - is to try to help them realise their error. What we don't do is teach the efficacy of invisible snake venom to our medical students. We know that people seem to want to believe all sorts of utter nonsense which can be proven to be false. For example dowsing - even when it's proven to them that they can't actually detect water, they still believe they can. It's something odd in the human psyche, but god it isn't.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Any time we feel anxiety we attempt to avoid it. If we don't avoid it eventually it will fade away an have no power over us.
Hypotheticaly if you were to confront the anxiety you feel about your god's non existance the anxiety would fail: provided you refrain from 'relapse'. Just like the compulsion to smoke recedes through abstinence so to will the compulsion to cleave to the devine. Does that make any sense?The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9624 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Phat writes: What if thats the only way God decided to reveal Himself?(Herself,Itself, etc) Well then he she or it has a problem because it has chosen to put itself in a really stupid place -in our imagination alongside dragons, unicorns and Bilbo Baggins. Not only that, he's also chosen to be a different being in each head. To one he's Allah to another she's Yahwey, to some it's an ancestor and to others it's Neptune, Zeus or Rah. And he's missed me out entirely - what sort of a god would do that?Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 168 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
Good point.
Why would a god have to go through the whole charade when say simple manifest and say "I want you to live this way: you don't have to but if you don't when Judgement comes I will resurrect you into an immortal body and torture you for all eternity."? I think the reason he does not manifest and say that is because some bright spark might ask 'why?' Edited by Larni, : No reason given. Edited by Larni, : No reason given.The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer. -Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53 The explain to them any scientific investigation that explains the existence of things qualifies as science and as an explanation-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 286 Does a query (thats a question Stile) that uses this physical reality, to look for an answer to its existence and properties become theoretical, considering its deductive conclusions are based against objective verifiable realities.-Attributed to Dawn Bertot Message 134
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 726 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
You're moving the goalposts. We're talking about "knowing" that God doesn't exist. Whether He exists "for practical purposes" is another question. If you can't find Him - and admittedly you've only looked in your own garden - that might mean that He doesn't matter but it has no bearing on whether or not He exists. As long as He could be "hiding", you can't legitimately claim that you "know" He doesn't exist.
If these snakes are invisible and leave no evidence of themselves, it makes no difference whether they exist or not - for all practical purposes they don't exist. And given the total lack of any evidence, only the delusional would continue to believe in them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9624 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Ringo writes: You're moving the goalposts. We're talking about "knowing" that God doesn't exist. Whether He exists "for practical purposes" is another question. If you can't find Him - and admittedly you've only looked in your own garden - that might mean that He doesn't matter but it has no bearing on whether or not He exists. As long as He could be "hiding", you can't legitimately claim that you "know" He doesn't exist. Mine was a narrow point about absence of evidence not meaning evidence of absence. If I don't find snakes in my garden after doing everything humanly possible to find them, I can reasonably claim that as evidence of absence. It's an error to say absence of evidence is not indicative of a simple absence. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 726 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
It's also an error to say that absence of evidence "is" evidence of absence. The proper approach is to say that absence of evidence can be evidence of absence. However, it is weak evidence at best, which is why the OP fails.
It's an error to say absence of evidence is not indicative of a simple absence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9624 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
ringo writes: It's also an error to say that absence of evidence "is" evidence of absence. The proper approach is to say that absence of evidence can be evidence of absence. However, it is weak evidence at best, which is why the OP fails. We're probably in violent agreement, but just in case. If you've taken every feasible effort to establish evidence of presence, if it's not found, then it IS evidence of absence.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025