A confusion both athiests and believers have.

[VitalOne]

I wouldn't go lecturing atheists on what evidence & belief means. Perhaps you should read up on a certain court case in Dover :roflmao:

Well, I would go lecture atheists on what evidence and belief means, I mean a lot of atheists really believe that evidence causes something to become true...and without it something is false..

*************
M*W: Let's use the example of UFOs, aliens and other paranormal 'evidence.' There have been sightings of UFOs by prominent and well-respected people. There have been those people who can give detailed accounts of their abductions under hypnosis. There allegedly are some physical artifacts from the Roswell Incident. There are crop circles, night lights, and other visual 'evidences.' Much has been written about such phenomena, and many people believe there is adequate evidence to support a positive conclusion to UFOs and ETs. Yet, we still don't have absolute proof of their existence. So, evidence does not always offer proof of the existence of something.

But the UFO evidence you provided isn't real empirical evidence...empirical evidence of aliens and UFOs would be things like the DNA of an alien or some biological specimen, an artifact made of an element that doesn't exist on Earth, etc...these things would be real concrete proof of alien life.

So what would constitute as empirical evidence for God? Atheists just refuse
any type of evidence.....

When there is no evidence for or against something, it doesn't exist, at least in our current methods of challenging the evidence.

I wouldn't say "it doesn't exist" but I would say that, in the absence of evidence (either for or against) then that thing is logically consistent with something that does not exist - i.e. in every respect it behaves logically equal to non-existence - but could still actually exist - there's just no evidence.

But this doesn't make any type of sense. Take for instance in ancient times there was no evidence for electromagnetism, blackholes, quarks, and many other things recently discovered in modern times....are you saying they didn't exist back then?

The only way you can make these type of statements is if science has all the evidence there is and has discovered all there is...but science hasn't...there are many undiscovered things that really do exist even without evidence....

 

[Pete]

I mean a lot of atheists really believe that evidence causes something to become true...and without it something is false.

I think you might have a false impression... some people might have that idea, but I'd be surprised if many did.
Do you have any evidence either way?

So what would constitute as empirical evidence for God? Atheists just refuse any type of evidence.....

Atheists don't ask any more evidence for the existence of God than they ask for the existence of a human being.

If God regularly manifested himself in a consistent and palpable manner (ie a visible, audible, tactile, and responsive presence) that people could interact with, then there wouldn't be any atheists.


Why does God hide?

 

[Pete]

I mean a lot of atheists really believe that evidence causes something to become true...and without it something is false.

Another thought...
If evidence of a thing should be evident, but reasonable efforts fail to reveal any evidence, then it might be reasonable to suspect that the thing doesn't exist. (ie sometimes absence of evidence is evidence of absence).

Many atheists do think that if God exists, then evidence of his existence should be obvious... which again leads to my last question: Why does God hide?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

But the UFO evidence you provided isn't real empirical evidence... empirical evidence of aliens and UFOs would be things like the DNA of an alien or some biological specimen, an artifact made of an element that doesn't exist on Earth, etc...these things would be real concrete proof of alien life.

*************
M*W: That was exactly my point. Note the apostrophes around 'evidence.' There is about as much evidence, maybe more, for UFOs existing, than there is for god existing. I used the UFO analogy because there are 'claims' of evidence, but even if the US government does have an alien on ice, no one has ever been known to actually see it. That 'evidence' is still inconclusive.

So what would constitute as empirical evidence for God? Atheists just refuse
any type of evidence.....

*************
M*W: There is no empiracle evicence for god. No, it is not that atheists 'refuse to believe' any type of evidence for a god, there is none.

The only way you can make these type of statements is if science has all the evidence there is and has discovered all there is...but science hasn't...there are many undiscovered things that really do exist even without evidence....

*************
M*W: There's a whole universe of stuff science still hasn't proven. That's not the point. Until such time as they can be proven to exist through the study of empiracle evidence, they don't exist in reality, although they may live in the imaginations of many. Once again for posterity, the burden of proof is on the shoulders of the believers and not on the shoulders of atheists.

 

[Grantywanty]

M*W: There's a whole universe of stuff science still hasn't proven. That's not the point. Until such time as they can be proven to exist through the study of empiracle evidence, they don't exist in reality, although they may live in the imaginations of many. Once again for posterity, the burden of proof is on the shoulders of the believers and not on the shoulders of atheists.

See, right in here you repeated the error I mentioned at the start of this thread.

"Until such time they are proven...they don't exist in reality."

That is absurd and most scientists would not agree with you.

An example I have used many times is rogue waves. These were reported by sailors long before technology was capable of recording them and science later explaining them. Until this time the relevent scientists (ocenographers, phycists, poo poohed these sighted, explaining them away as the beliefs of overly emotional people seeing much smaller waves then they were reporting). Only after video cameras were regularly installed on ship bridges and satellite viewing technology became more precise did scientists realize THAT THEIR ABILITY IN THIS CASE TO DETERMINE THE LIKLIHOOD OF A CERTAIN PHENOMENON BEING REAL had been greatly overestimated.

Ask any oceanographer today if those rouge waves existed BEFORE science accepted them and they will say OF COURSE.

This is not a proof of God or any other phenomenon. What it points out is that people with certain experiences adn intuitions have often been right about the reality of phenonena that were real and only much later proven by science. Phenomena that were often poo poohed by scientists and rationalists overestimating their abilities to guess how likely certain phenomena or essences are.

A person believing in ghosts or God may very well be rational. Science can not state that what they think is real is not real.

Arguments based on one's own experience are not strong enough to act as proof FOR OTHERS. FOR OTHERS!!!!!!

That does not mean trusting one's own experiences and intuition is inherenly irrational even if it is not (yet) supported by science. This truth is born out in the history of science itself.

There is a confusion between
1) a rational argument that is strong enough to convince others
2) a a belief one has for oneself based on experience and intution (and logic, for that matter - I am sure some of those sailors, for example, determined the height of the wave by seeing where it crossed portions of the ships, etc.)

What I see a lot of rationalists do is confuse their ability to cut up believers arguments as proof that the phenomena do not exist. All they have proven is that the arguments are not strong enough to convince someone who has not had the experiences the other person has had.

Again, this does not prove God or ghosts or even rogue waves. I am pointing out the confusion between two things and the attendant smugness that often goes with them.

That certain believers think they can convince with weak arguments...
that certain believers do not believe because of experience or good intuitions etc...
that people have believed in things that have turned out not to be true....
does not matter a bit.
None of this removes the possibility other more sane and grounded believers are right.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

See, right in here you repeated the error I mentioned at the start of this thread.

"Until such time they are proven...they don't exist in reality."

That is absurd and most scientists would not agree with you.

*************
M*W: The buzz word here is "reality." Reality is what we can sense with our five senses and can be tested and proved or disproved. Something may exist, but we cannot sense it or test it, so it doesn't exist in our present reality.

An example I have used many times is rogue waves.

*************
M*W: When it comes to oceanography, I would take your word for it in a nanosecond. I'm not even knowledgeable enough to carry on a conversation about it. This phenomenon exists in your reality but not mine. You sense it, you can test it and provide conclusive evidence, but I can't. It is not part of my reality, but I don't reject it as if doesn't exist to others, just not me.

This is not a proof of God or any other phenomenon. What it points out is that people with certain experiences adn intuitions have often been right about the reality of phenonena that were real and only much later proven by science.

*************
M*W: Sure. One could have a thought, idea or premise to test. Having that thought, however, does not bring it into reality. I believe there could be such a thing as a time machine. I've thought about this for years on end. I've discussed it with other people who agree it is a possibility. We've even gotten together to lay down plans to build a time machine. We've even had volunteers who wanted to pilot our time machine. We bought supplies and life support to fit into our time machine. We even started building it on the launch pad we've designed. We started this project 20 years ago, but still there is no time machine, yet we still think about it, believe in it, work for it, hold meetings to design it, and the launch pad still sits empty, but we will never stop believing in our time machine.

A person believing in ghosts or God may very well be rational. Science can not state that what they think is real is not real.

*************
M*W: True, but you are wrong in your assumption that "science cannot state what it thinks is real or not real." The purpose of science is NOT to determine what is real but what is NOT real." It is the process of elimination--deductive reasoning.

In order to prove what god is, one would need to first prove what god isn't. I'll get you started on this analysis:

1) god is not human;
2) god is not visible;
3) god is neither male nor female;

Arguments based on one's own experience are not strong enough to act as proof FOR OTHERS. FOR OTHERS!!!!!!

*************
M*W: This is true. Your experience of god is not strong enough to prove to me there is a god.

That does not mean trusting one's own experiences and intuition is inherenly irrational even if it is not (yet) supported by science. This truth is born out in the history of science itself.

There is a confusion between
1) a rational argument that is strong enough to convince others
2) a a belief one has for oneself based on experience and intution (and logic, for that matter - I am sure some of those sailors, for example, determined the height of the wave by seeing where it crossed portions of the ships, etc.)

What I see a lot of rationalists do is confuse their ability to cut up believers arguments as proof that the phenomena do not exist. All they have proven is that the arguments are not strong enough to convince someone who has not had the experiences the other person has had.

Again, this does not prove God or ghosts or even rogue waves. I am pointing out the confusion between two things and the attendant smugness that often goes with them.

That certain believers think they can convince with weak arguments...
that certain believers do not believe because of experience or good intuitions etc...
that people have believed in things that have turned out not to be true....
does not matter a bit.
None of this removes the possibility other more sane and grounded believers are right.[/QUOTE]

 

[KennyJC]

Well, I would go lecture atheists on what evidence and belief means, I mean a lot of atheists really believe that evidence causes something to become true...and without it something is false..

When you invent something immaterial and say that it really does exist and is true, you are wrong. I feel about as confident saying there is no sentient being as the first cause as I do claiming there is no such thing as the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

And you are the one who created a thread titled "why do atheist ask for evidence of god"... I wouldn't expect you to answer honestly, but how can you believe something farfetched without evidence? The simple truth is that it makes you feel warm and fuzzy... that's it.

So what would constitute as empirical evidence for God? Atheists just refuse
any type of evidence.....

Any of those farfetched biblical stories happening in the world of 24 hour media coverage. It seems rather convenient that they all happened before any sophisticated recording of human history came about, doesn't it? Maybe he is exhausted... y'know, after creating the universe in 6 days, causing 'global' floods and sending his miracle working kids to Earth etc... Tell him to show himself and I will believe.

Take for instance in ancient times there was no evidence for electromagnetism, blackholes, quarks, and many other things recently discovered in modern times....are you saying they didn't exist back then?

First you have to remember, that we can't GUESS what things exist... we are only led to believe things exist through successive evidence. Guessing = wrong. Guessing quarks exist if you are a caveman = impossible.

The only way you can make these type of statements is if science has all the evidence there is and has discovered all there is...but science hasn't...there are many undiscovered things that really do exist even without evidence....

You are still a fool to believe it even if it turns out to be right 1,000 years down the line... a lucky fool.

 

[VitalOne]

When you invent something immaterial and say that it really does exist and is true, you are wrong. I feel about as confident saying there is no sentient being as the first cause as I do claiming there is no such thing as the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

Well you assume that humans invented God. I can easily say humans invented astronomy, mathematics, science, chemistry, engineering, etc....are all these things also irrelevant and false?

And you are the one who created a thread titled "why do atheist ask for evidence of god"... I wouldn't expect you to answer honestly, but how can you believe something farfetched without evidence? The simple truth is that it makes you feel warm and fuzzy... that's it.

Well I can tell you why I can believe in many things without evidence. Its pretty simple:
- I base things upon my personal experiences and own logical conclusions
- We KNOW that there are innumerable, possibly infinite things that really do exist and that really are true that we are completely unaware of, this is a sound fact
- Therefore since there are many things that really do exist and that are really true that there is currently absolutely no evidence for, I can believe in many things that there is no empirical evidence for
- Anyone who only believes what the current empirical evidence is believing in a lie, something false, since our knowledge is incomplete and wrong in many ways

Any of those farfetched biblical stories happening in the world of 24 hour media coverage. It seems rather convenient that they all happened before any sophisticated recording of human history came about, doesn't it? Maybe he is exhausted... y'know, after creating the universe in 6 days, causing 'global' floods and sending his miracle working kids to Earth etc... Tell him to show himself and I will believe.

Well what about non-Judeo-Christian religions? What empirical evidence can really show that God exists? I'm sure many predictions have come true in the Bible, Qu'ran, and other texts, but this will not really consitute as evidence of God for atheists...

First you have to remember, that we can't GUESS what things exist... we are only led to believe things exist through successive evidence. Guessing = wrong. Guessing quarks exist if you are a caveman = impossible.

Sure we can guess, this is how all hypotheses begin and this is how all of mankinds' knowledge arose....without guessing we'd be nowhere...

Also many ancient people guessed many correct things....

You are still a fool to believe it even if it turns out to be right 1,000 years down the line... a lucky fool.

Again you only confirm what I said, you really believe that "evidence causes something to become true" and without it something is false...

 

[Sarkus]

Again you only confirm what I said, you really believe that "evidence causes something to become true" and without it something is false...

No atheist I know of thinks/believes that "evidence causes something to be true" and without it something is false....

Lack of evidence is NOT evidence of lack - at least not in a rational sense.
It might indeed lead many to assess the probability of existence as extremely small - but noone would say that lack of evidence is PROOF of non-existence, as you seem to think of us atheists.

But without evidence that thing is logically consistent with something that doesn't exist. Which is a very different statement than saying that the thing doesn't exist.

 

[fadingCaptain]

VitalOne,
As humans, we only have a subjective window of which to view the universe. As such, truth can only be a probability, not possibility. Speaking of things in terms of 'possibilities' of existing is fruitless. We all draw conclusions based on 'probabilities' determined by a wide range of factors, including logic, evidence, and emotion. Seeing knowledge and truth in light of the range of probablities helps to free us from a black/white type view of truth that simply isn't within our grasp.

As for me, I think the probability of a supernatural personal god is extremely small to the point where I can safely say I lack the belief.

 

[VitalOne]

No atheist I know of thinks/believes [/i]that "evidence causes something to be true" and without it something is false...[/i].

Lack of evidence is NOT evidence of lack - at least not in a rational sense.
It might indeed lead many to assess the probability of existence as extremely small - but noone would say that lack of evidence is PROOF of non-existence, as you seem to think of us atheists.

But without evidence that thing is logically consistent with something that doesn't exist. Which is a very different statement than saying that the thing doesn't exist.

Actually, I disagree I really think that atheists really believe that evidence causes something to become true. Thats how they act, they say no evidence must mean that God does not exist.

As for no evidence being logically consistent with something that doesn't exist, thats true to a certain extent. The problem is we have no way of gathering evidence of God, therefore it is not the same as being logically consistent with something that doesn't exist. If for instance I said there was a man in the sky who controls everything, and you checked everywhere in the sky and there was no man, that would be direct evidence against the existence of the man in the sky.

VitalOne,
As humans, we only have a subjective window of which to view the universe. As such, truth can only be a probability, not possibility. Speaking of things in terms of 'possibilities' of existing is fruitless. We all draw conclusions based on 'probabilities' determined by a wide range of factors, including logic, evidence, and emotion. Seeing knowledge and truth in light of the range of probablities helps to free us from a black/white type view of truth that simply isn't within our grasp.

As for me, I think the probability of a supernatural personal god is extremely small to the point where I can safely say I lack the belief.

Exactly, what we perceive as the truth is just a subjective window. The actual truth is most likely very very very different. Since I know that the actual truth must be very very very different from what modern science currently perceives as the truth I can believe in many things without empirical evidence...

 

[Sarkus]

Actually, I disagree I really think that atheists really believe that evidence causes something to become true. Thats how they act, they say no evidence must mean that God does not exist.

Care to cite evidence of this claim, with examples from this forum?

As for no evidence being logically consistent with something that doesn't exist, thats true to a certain extent.

To a certain extent? Where does this "extent" end?

The problem is we have no way of gathering evidence of God, therefore it is not the same as being logically consistent with something that doesn't exist.

If you hold that there is no way of gethering evidence of God, then yes it is.

If for instance I said there was a man in the sky who controls everything, and you checked everywhere in the sky and there was no man, that would be direct evidence against the existence of the man in the sky.

The only way you can assert a negative through "lack of evidence" is if you test every possible piece of evidence and come up short, as you surmise.

However, until you actually find the "evidence for" something, that thing IS logically consistent with something that doesn't exist.
This holds even in your above example.

Exactly, what we perceive as the truth is just a subjective window. The actual truth is most likely very very very different. Since I know that the actual truth must be very very very different from what modern science currently perceives as the truth I can believe in many things without empirical evidence...

Noone is denying your ability to, or even your right to. But it doesn't stop said beliefs from being irrational, whether they are ultimately found to be truth or not.

 

[VitalOne]

Care to cite evidence of this claim, with examples from this forum?

I said thats how atheists act...take for instance Dawkins says he doesn't believe in God because there's no evidence...therefore he and other atheists believe that evidence causes something to become true....without it something must be false....

To a certain extent? Where does this "extent" end?

If you hold that there is no way of gethering evidence of God, then yes it is.

Thats not true, something that is untestable != logically consistent with something that doesn't exist, take for instance the many-worlds interpretation, its unverifiable and still relevant in science to people like Stephen Hawkings and others...

Something that is untestable simply means we haven't thought of a way to test it yet....thats all...or we can't verify it...

The only way you can assert a negative through "lack of evidence" is if you test every possible piece of evidence and come up short, as you surmise.

However, until you actually find the "evidence for" something, that thing IS logically consistent with something that doesn't exist.
This holds even in your above example.

No this is false, using your logic all the undiscovered things are currently logically consisent with things that do not exist.....they are logically consistent with things that are unknown, unverified, untestable...not things that do not exist....

Noone is denying your ability to, or even your right to. But it doesn't stop said beliefs from being irrational, whether they are ultimately found to be truth or not.

WOW....know this is sad belief....you believe that believing the truth is irrational, even if it is true and believing in fantasy is rational, even if it is false?

This just goes to show that atheists aren't people that are seeking the truth, they are just seeking to preserve their atheistic faith....

 

[Sarkus]

... Dawkins says he doesn't believe in God because there's no evidence...therefore he and other atheists believe that evidence causes something to become true....without it something must be false....

This is an illogical conclusion you reach.
Evidence doesn't cause something to be true. Dawkins knows that.
Likewise he knows that lack of evidence doesn't make something non-existent / false.
But to "believe" in something without evidence is irrational - which is why Dawkins, and many others of us, do not do it.

Thats not true, something that is untestable != logically consistent with something that doesn't exist, take for instance the many-worlds interpretation, its unverifiable and still relevant in science to people like Stephen Hawkings and others...

It exists as an idea - but the reality of it is akin to anything that doesn't exist.

You need to differentiate between the usefulness of the idea, and the actual existence of the subject of the idea.

Something that is untestable simply means we haven't thought of a way to test it yet....thats all...or we can't verify it...

No - when I say "untestable" I mean that it is beyond the realms of testing - not just now - but always. The absolute position.
Which is where God seems to sit.

No this is false, using your logic all the undiscovered things are currently logically consisent with things that do not exist.....they are logically consistent with things that are unknown, unverified, untestable...not things that do not exist....

Until evidence is found for something - any evidence whatsoever - that thing IS akin to something that doesn't exist. This is a logical truth, regardless of your incredulity.
Being akin to something that doesn't exist is NOT the same as stating that it doesn't exist.

For example - do you believe in the Thurstlebob?
No evidence exists for it whatsoever. None. Zip. Nada.
You can't say for sure that it does or doesn't exist - as there is no evidence either way.
But to you it is akin to something that doesn't exist - as there is as much evidence for its existence as there is for something that you know NOT to exist.
Why would you then believe that it exists?

As stated, you're not saying that it DOESN'T exist - but that there is no evidence to believe that it does... which is very different.

WOW....know this is sad belief....you believe that believing the truth is irrational, even if it is true and believing in fantasy is rational, even if it is false?

I pity that you don't seem to understand either the terms you're using or have a real grasp of logic.
Irrational does not equate to wrong.
Believing ANYTHING without evidence IS IRRATIONAL.

However - once evidence exists it becomes a different story entirely, and no longer irrational.

This just goes to show that atheists aren't people that are seeking the truth, they are just seeking to preserve their atheistic faith....

Irrelevant and false conclusion.


The rationality (or irrationality) of a belief is determined by the PATH to reach the conclusion - NOT the conclusion itself.

If it was the year 6,000 BC and I truly believed that there were 8 planets (not including the demoted Pluto ) circling our sun, including Earth, based on the fact that it rained last Tuesday - how would you classify my belief?
It is an irrational belief - because the path to reaching the conclusion is based on flawed logic and a lack of evidence.
But it would ultimately be proven correct - through evidence.

 

[VitalOne]

This is an illogical conclusion you reach.
Evidence doesn't cause something to be true. Dawkins knows that.
Likewise he knows that lack of evidence doesn't make something non-existent / false.
But to "believe" in something without evidence is irrational - which is why Dawkins, and many others of us, do not do it.

The conclusion isn't illogical.

You all say "something is true if there is evidence for it" and "something is false if there is no evidence for it", therefore logically you would conclude that you all really believe that "evidence causes something to be true"

It exists as an idea - but the reality of it is akin to anything that doesn't exist.

You need to differentiate between the usefulness of the idea, and the actual existence of the subject of the idea.

No - when I say "untestable" I mean that it is beyond the realms of testing - not just now - but always. The absolute position.
Which is where God seems to sit.

I think God is testable, someone just needs to come up with a good way of testing it...the same goes for the MWI, I think it is testable some how....

Until evidence is found for something - any evidence whatsoever - that thing IS akin to something that doesn't exist. This is a logical truth, regardless of your incredulity.
Being akin to something that doesn't exist is NOT the same as stating that it doesn't exist.

I don't think so. Its logically consistent with something that we have no knowledge of....something unknown...

For example - do you believe in the Thurstlebob?
No evidence exists for it whatsoever. None. Zip. Nada.
You can't say for sure that it does or doesn't exist - as there is no evidence either way.
But to you it is akin to something that doesn't exist - as there is as much evidence for its existence as there is for something that you know NOT to exist.
Why would you then believe that it exists?

As stated, you're not saying that it DOESN'T exist - but that there is no evidence to believe that it does... which is very different.

Well I don't know what this "Thurstlebob" is, so I cannot say if I believe it exists or not. Also comparing "Thurstlebob" to God or FSM is a false comparison, unless they all possess the same characteristics, if they have different characteristics then it is a false comparison.

The reason it is a false comparison is because they possess different characteristics, its like someone saying "you believe in electromagnetism but not the ether", you can't compare the two, since they have different characteristics...

I pity that you don't seem to understand either the terms you're using or have a real grasp of logic.
Irrational does not equate to wrong.
Believing ANYTHING without evidence IS IRRATIONAL.

However - once evidence exists it becomes a different story entirely, and no longer irrational.

First off, why is believing in something without evidence irrational, if we KNOW that there are many things that are true that there is currently no evidence for?

Really irrational is not wrong? So believing the truth is irrational if at the present time the evidence does not show it where as believing in something that is false is rational because the evidence shows it?

You only confirm what I said....you aren't seeking the find the actual truth...you're seeking to preserve your atheistic faith and rationality...

Irrelevant and false conclusion.


The rationality (or irrationality) of a belief is determined by the PATH to reach the conclusion - NOT the conclusion itself.

If it was the year 6,000 BC and I truly believed that there were 8 planets (not including the demoted Pluto ) circling our sun, including Earth, based on the fact that it rained last Tuesday - how would you classify my belief?
It is an irrational belief - because the path to reaching the conclusion is based on flawed logic and a lack of evidence.
But it would ultimately be proven correct - through evidence.

Well whats the point of rationality then if it leads people to believing in false things? You all know that there are many things undiscovered, unknown, etc...yet at the sametime say its irrational to believe in anything without evidence...

As for your example, it is a bad example. If you base it off it rained last tuesday then it is irrational, if you base it off your own logical conclusions then it isn't....

 

[geeser]

sarkus: there really is no point replying to vital's post he's far far to blinkered.
I can imagine him with his fingers in his ears singing la la la la, "I cant hear you" la la la la.

 

[VitalOne]

sarkus: there really is no point replying to vital's post he's far far to blinkered.
I can imagine him with his fingers in his ears singing la la la la, "I cant hear you" la la la la.

I don't understand how you could conclude this, since I've responded to his arguments in detail with no "I can't hear you" arguments.....

 

[Sarkus]

The conclusion isn't illogical.
You all say "something is true if there is evidence for it" and "something is false if there is no evidence for it", therefore logically you would conclude that you all really believe that "evidence causes something to be true"

You obviously don't read the posts I make... as this is most certainly NOT the position I have been explaining to you.
No evidence does NOT make something false - it just doesn't make it true.
If you can not grasp that this is what I am explaining to you then you will continue to ignore the points I make and go off on and reach some irrelevant conclusion based on what you want to think others are saying rather than what they actually are.

I think God is testable, someone just needs to come up with a good way of testing it...the same goes for the MWI, I think it is testable some how....

Feel free to provide the test.

I don't think so. Its logically consistent with something that we have no knowledge of....something unknown...

Not so. We can have KNOWLEDGE of many things that do not exist - the square-circle etc.
But we have NO EVIDENCE of the square-circle.

It is the absolute lack of evidence that makes something akin to non-existence - not knowledge.

Well I don't know what this "Thurstlebob" is, so I cannot say if I believe it exists or not.

Now you're getting somewhere.
You have no knowledge of, nor evidence for, this "Thurstlebob". You are agnostic toward it, and do not have a belief of its existence.

But as I explained above - having knowledge of something is irrelevant with respect to the existence of that thing - as we can have knowledge of plenty of things that do not actually exist.

But until we get the all important evidence of its existence then that thing is logically no different to something that does not exist.

Also comparing "Thurstlebob" to God or FSM is a false comparison, unless they all possess the same characteristics, if they have different characteristics then it is a false comparison.

The reason it is a false comparison is because they possess different characteristics, its like someone saying "you believe in electromagnetism but not the ether", you can't compare the two, since they have different characteristics...

Characteristics of the things are irrelevant.
Knowledge of the things are irrelevant.
It is the EVIDENCE that counts in determining whether something is logically consistent with non-existence.
We can define electromagnetism and the "ether" how ever you want - that is our "knowledge" (the definitions). But knowledge of something does not make it exist. Likewise evidence does not make it exist and lack of evidence does not make it not exist. But until we know it DOES exist then it is logically the same (i.e. logically consistent with) something that doesn't exist.

First off, why is believing in something without evidence irrational, if we KNOW that there are many things that are true that there is currently no evidence for?

There are an infinite things that lack evidence, and this is not an exaggeration but truth.
If you have no evidence for any of them, why believe in just one of them and not another. Why not believe every single one of them exists?

Really irrational is not wrong? So believing the truth is irrational if at the present time the evidence does not show it where as believing in something that is false is rational because the evidence shows it?

Almost.
The evidence can NEVER show something to be false.
The evidence merely is what it is.
It is the INTERPRETATION of that evidence that leads one to false conclusions.
Often the interpretation of the evidence is irrational, which in turn will lead to irrational conclusions.
However, if the interpretation is rational, and the conclusion is rationally deduced from that interpretation - it could even then still be wrong.

As stated before - rational / irrational is with regard to the PATH taken to reach the conclusion.
TRUTH / FALSITY is with regard to the conclusion itself.

It is thus possible to rationally reach a false conclusion, just as it is possible to irrationally reach a truth.

You only confirm what I said....you aren't seeking the find the actual truth...you're seeking to preserve your atheistic faith and rationality...

How does this confirm it?

Well whats the point of rationality then if it leads people to believing in false things?

It shouldn't lead to any beliefs whatsoever. It should merely lead to probability of accuracy based on the available evidence.

You all know that there are many things undiscovered, unknown, etc...yet at the sametime say its irrational to believe in anything without evidence...

Yes. For the reasons I have stated above regarding the infinite things for which there is no evidence. Yet you seem to think that believing in just one of them is rational above a belief in any of the others. Or do you contend that it is rational to believe in anything you want if there is no evidence for it at all?

As for your example, it is a bad example. If you base it off it rained last tuesday then it is irrational, if you base it off your own logical conclusions then it isn't....

In order for you to reach logical conclusions about reality you have to have evidence.
If you think not - reach any logical conclusion you care to think about that relates to reality - and then see if it stems from evidence.

 

[geeser]

I don't understand how you could conclude this, since I've responded to his arguments in detail with no "I can't hear you" arguments.....

coming back with the same arguement because you're deliberately mis-reading his post, is not what anybody calls responding, it's the la la la response.
"just read his post prior to this".
no of course you wont do that, it will be the normal la la la response.

 

[Grantywanty]

"I am angry"
"prove it"
"how can I prove it? I could hit you or scream, but that could just be 'outward show' "
'if you can't prove it, you aren't angry'

As just one example.

There are things we know, but cannot prove. This fact does not entail that others must now believe these things we cannot prove. It does entail that someone's inability to prove something to us DOES NOT NECESSARILY mean that they are wrong.

And athiests make this confusion again and again in discussion forums.
And often smugly.
To be smug in the face of a smug 'proof' that fails is one thing.
But to be smug based on the above error is being rude based on an emotional need on the athiest's part.
Precisely the kind of pattern they feel they have transcended.