In regards to atheism.

[karenmansker]

It is correct to assert that

Evidence of Absence

is in and of itself

EVIDENCE

and

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

Christopher Hitchens

Also Absence of Evidence does NOT correlate with a proposition being true

It may be

true

false

(it cannot be both)

no evidence (or not enough evidence) has been collected to PROVE true or false

unknowable due to limitations within the ability of KNOWING with CERTAINTY anything

More in the links

https://googleweblight.com/?lite_ur...ki/Argument_from_ignorance&ei=chB4q09h&lc=en-

ID&s=1&m=369&host=www.google.co.id&ts=1491790369&sig=AJsQQ1DW1USj3BIRURIjgo_0Rc0pAUagkg

Michael: I had a look at the C. Hitchens link you provided. Doing a word search and a cursory read, I did not find any of the assertions that you made and attributed to him as a source. Perhaps such attribution can be found elsewhere, if so please provide your source. Otherwise, it sounds to me that you are making assertions that are not evidentiarily attributable to your source.

 

[karenmansker]

Thank for taking your time to look into the meaning of "claim".
Maybe I should try and find another word which means what I think of when I use the word claim.
Let mean try again.
If someone presents an account of their belief, in an entity which does not seem to exist, then in my opinion if they expect to be taken seriously they should present reasonable evidence in support.
If they are unable to present evidence that should be the end of the matter and resorting to a reply which in effect tries to move the burben of proof to a childish prove me wrong does not wash with me.
I hope I have conveyed my meaning better than my earlier attempt.
Simply "put up or shut up" is my call.
You say you own a car... show it to me but dont expect me to believe you if all you can say is... You prove I dont own a car.
You have a god then show me but dont say you prove I have no god.

I dont care if you want to call my approach disingenuos, you can lable things whatever way makes sence to you.

Fair enough and I did not think you were the first to say same but having presented it I merely made my comment.

I seem to have upset you which was not my intention.
Alex

Thanks Alex . . . NOT upset. BTW: I was not necessarily referencing you in my 'disingeneous trolling' comment, but just noting my observations that some Sciforum members seem to enjoy their self-effacing demands for evidential proof for another's mere opinions, assertions, claims, etc. when such demands are inappropriate, rude, and unprofessional - and NOT required. That is why you will commonly find me using the emphasized 'IMO' in my posts.

 

[Randwolf]

Christopher Hitchens
Also Absence of Evidence does NOT correlate with a proposition being true

Michael: I had a look at the C. Hitchens link you provided. Doing a word search and a cursory read, Idid not find any of the assertions that you made and attributed to him as a source.

KMS, perhaps Michael wasn't aware of how google challenged you are...

https://www.quora.com/How-can-one-p...ut-evidence-can-be-dismissed-without-evidence

Hope that clears everything up for you...

 

[Randwolf]

enjoy their self-effacing demands

Once again...

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Thanks Alex . . . NOT upset. BTW: I was not necessarily referencing you in my 'disingeneous trolling' comment, but just noting my observations that some Sciforum members seem to enjoy their self-effacing demands for evidential proof for another's mere opinions, assertions, claims, etc. when such demands are inappropriate, rude, and unprofessional - and NOT required. That is why you will commonly find me using the emphasized 'IMO' in my posts.

Thanks for putting my mind at ease I never wish to upset people but realise even with good intentions I have that ability.
I think I understand how you feel about the behaviour of some folk as I too think similar..
It takes little effort to be polite but I guess some of the topics we see discussed on this forum will have some folk get somewhat passionate and then they forget to be nice.
Thank you again.
Alex

 

[karenmansker]

KMS, perhaps Michael wasn't aware of how google challenged you are...

https://www.quora.com/How-can-one-p...ut-evidence-can-be-dismissed-without-evidence

Hope that clears everything up for you...

Randy: Michael did NOT provide the same link that you did. It is NOT my job to research the internet for someone else's fact sources. If one provides a link intimating that it backs up their assertions, that link should provide that factual backup. That is how we do reasonable discussions here . . . . by 'convention'!

 

[Randwolf]

Randy: Michael did NOT provide the same link that you did. It is NOT my job to research the internet for someone else's fact sources. If one provides a link intimating that it backs up their assertions, that link should provide that factual backup. That is how we do reasonable discussions here . . . . by 'convention'!

I totally understand KMS - but in light of your good faith inquiry and your apparent severe google handicap I was nice enough to do the research for you, since it's "not your job" - you can thank me now. Or you can wait till later...

 

[karenmansker]

I totally understand KMS - but in light of your good faith inquiry and your apparent severe google handicap I was nice enough to do the research for you, since it's "not your job" - you can thank me now. Or you can wait till later...

Randy: Thanks, KMA! . . . . . see Alex?

 

[Yazata]

I agree with Jan . . . .

About what??

IMO, either one believes in God, or one doesn't.

I'm not convinced of that. A great deal depends on what people mean when they use the word 'God'. Oftentimes people don't mean the same thing when they use the word. I distinguish between the metaphysical functions of natural theology such as 'first cause' and the personalized deities of the religious traditions. It's possible to believe in a first-cause (the 'big bang'?) without therefore believing in the existence of Yahweh, Krishna or Allah.

But assuming that it's true, does it really take 900+ posts to say "I believe in God"? There's something else going on here.

Those who do believe likely have more to look forward to (both objectively and subjectively) than those who don't.

Subjectively, maybe. Objectively would depend on whether God objectively exists (and on whether the existence of God offers anything to look forward to).

Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

If CNN is saying that Kim Jong Un just blew up San Francisco with nuclear missile, and I look out my front window and see that the SF skyline is still there and looks perfectly normal with no mushroom clouds, then I'd say that the absence of evidence of a nuclear explosion is good evidence of the absence of a nuclear explosion.

It all depends on whether we would expect evidence of something. God is a difficult case since it isn't clear what evidence we should expect gods to leave or what evidence, if any, would be convincing evidence of the existence of a god. (What kind of evidence would be evidence that something is truly worthy of religious worship?)

But I do think that it's safe to say that the absence of evidence for X is absence of any plausible and convincing reason to believe X.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Thanks Alex . . . NOT upset. BTW: I was not necessarily referencing you in my 'disingeneous trolling' comment, but just noting my observations that some Sciforum members seem to enjoy their self-effacing demands for evidential proof for another's mere opinions, assertions, claims, etc. when such demands are inappropriate, rude, and unprofessional - and NOT required. That is why you will commonly find me using the emphasized 'IMO' in my posts.

I see some people are still of the opinion that the Bonehead Gambit is still viable.
If you make a claim then yes, you do need to support it.
Likewise with assertions.
If all you're doing is spouting an opinion then, at the very least, it's simply non-contributory to the (any) topic with regard to a scientific/ rational discussion.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Objectively would depend on whether God objectively exists (and on whether the existence of God offers anything to look forward to).

The Universe is a big place, bigger than any human can comprehend and then some.

I think if there were a god, just as in the same way we can not comprehend the size of the Universe we would be incapable of comprehending an entity that presumably oversees the Universe.

And given the size of the Universe it seems implausible any entity would give a tinkers cuss about one insignificant planet, in an insignificant solar system floating in one galaxy which in turn is nothing special given there are billions of galaxies within our observable Universe and beyond our observable Universe it is reasonable to presume there may be an even greater number.

It is big.

And if such an entity, which is beyond our comprehension, exists in any form imaginable or not, and given its apparent lack of interaction with humans, I ask why would such an entity care about humans.


Each religion sees its members as special within the human race and perhaps it is that preoccupation that prevents the members of that religion realising just how small and insignificant they are....perhaps so insignificant not to be selected by this mythical entity as particularly special.

And surely if humans were in any way special that mythical entity could play a more active role in our situation.

I can understand that most folk can not grasp how small our world is in comparison to all that is out there and how such a realisation could cause dispair and further how they could want to believe there is more and that their insignificant existence must mean more than the enormity of the Universe can only suggest.

I have no problem accepting my insignificant role and I know it is enticing to think there must be more.

And so it seems to me the various religions offer hope of purpose and meaning and attract those poor folk who can't deal with their insignificance and they, religions, offer a make believe reality to prevent even thinking about how small our world really is ..

. Our size, our time to exist is less than a spek and no doubt we would be regarded this way by any entity capable of creating a Universe.

The concept that everything was created for us is absolutely laughable I can not understand how folk cling to their various superstitions and think cosmology is only about them.

Jan and others are entitled to fool themselves but perhaps should recognised that they are possibly victims of a religion capitalising on their fears of their own insignificance.

However this is a great thread, it can go on forever and I have no doubt anybody will change their minds.

But its great reading to pass the time on a rainy day.
Alex

 

[Michael 345]

Michael: I had a look at the C. Hitchens link you provided. Doing a word search and a cursory read, I did not find any of the assertions that you made and attributed to him as a source. Perhaps such attribution can be found elsewhere, if so please provide your source. Otherwise, it sounds to me that you are making assertions that are not evidentiarily attributable to your source.

The section ABOVE related to

Christopher Hitchens

The two links provided related to the details

BELOW

as indicated by the word Also

 

[Michael 345]

I totally understand KMS - but in light of your good faith inquiry and your apparent severe google handicap I was nice enough to do the research for you, since it's "not your job" - you can thank me now. Or you can wait till later...

Thanks

And as a point of interest the name of

Christopher Hitchens

in my post did / does go to details about HIM

As for the sections BELOW his name

The purpose of two links provided were for further information

Thanks again but I hope we don't go downhill having to define every word and clarifying every reference

Cheers

 

[Sarkus]

I made that point ages ago.
Because God does not exist for you, does not mean God does not exist.

Yet you ignore the equal point that if God does not objectively exist then God does not exist for anyone, not for believers or non-believers alike.

That is why 'without God' is a better explanation of your position. But you deny that because it implies God Is.

Because there is no evidence that God does exist objectively. You certainly believe it, seemingly a priori, but others don't share that belief. So why should they accept something that implies the existence of that which they don't have belief does exist objectively.
Feel free to show that God exists objectively and then we can move onto that issue of subjective awareness of God (the "God does not exist for you" you so eagerly throw around).

Your mistake is to think God exists like anything else exists, which is why objectivety is an issue.

No, I'm fairly sure that most here are able to realise that if God exists then he does not have the same nature of existence as a rock.

I'm also still not convinced you understand what objective and subjective existence actually mean.
So how do you know that God objectively exists, irrespective of the nature of that existence, and is not merely a wholly subjective interpretation of something else?

You cannot accept that God Is, and existence is an aspect of His Being.

So you believe. How do you know that God Is, that God objectively exists?

You are only prepared to accept God if He can be observed via the mundane senses.

You mean as opposed to the other sense you possess?
How do you know that God is actually nothing more than your intellect filling in gaps in comprehension with that which makes sense to you, rather than what you believe having any objective existence?

Hence God does not exist, because you have no sense of God.

And there you go back to the issue of subjective awareness rather than objectivity.
Show us that God has an objective existence, then we can move on.

Yet the very apparatus, and ability available to you, is due to God.

So you believe. Please provide evidence of this being the case? And do try to avoid those pesky circular arguments.

You're like people trapseing round the world trying to find yourself, when you are you all along.

Actually, the atheist, the one who lacks belief that god(s) exist, would seem far more likely to have found themself than the one who believes in a higher power and who is always seeking the purpose that they think has been given them.
But hey, if it helps you sleep at night.

So, any chance you can stick to the issue of objective existence?

 

[Sarkus]

I was not necessarily referencing you in my 'disingeneous trolling' comment, but just noting my observations that some Sciforum members seem to enjoy their self-effacing demands for evidential proof for another's mere opinions, assertions, claims, etc. when such demands are inappropriate, rude, and unprofessional - and NOT required. That is why you will commonly find me using the emphasized 'IMO' in my posts.

Karenmansker, your use of "IMO", emphasising that you are merely expressing an opinion, does not absolve you from the need to provide support for those positions.

I refer you to two parts of the forum rules:

"E 13 Appropriate supporting evidence or explanations should be posted together with any opinions, especially on contentious issues. Sciforums is not your personal blog, and should not be used to promote your unsupported claims."

And on the matter of how trolls can be identified:

"I 18 Never attempting to justify their position."

Therefore simply posting an opinion, without any support, explanation etc, especially when asked for it, is against forum etiquette, and a sign of trolling.
That you think it is "inappropriate, rude, and unprofessional - and NOT required" can only mean that you have not read the forum's rules, or if you have you have misinterpreted them, or simply do not understand them.

So I repeat: "IMO" does not absolve you from the need to provide support, explanation etc for your opinions.

If all you are wanting is a message board where you can post what you like without fear of being asked to support it, can I suggest Twitter?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yet you ignore the equal point that if God does not objectively exist then God does not exist for anyone, not for believers or non-believers alike.

I remember watching a documentary a while ago where someone commented that objective reality is essentially those realities and truths which are not affected by our objecting to them in belief or interpretation.

Now here you are saying the objective reality is fixed, and available equally to everyone.
Can you prove objective reality exists without any appeal to the subjective?

Because there is no evidence that God does exist objectively.

You have no idea that God does not exist objectively. You only know that God does not exist.

You certainly believe it, seemingly a priori, but others don't share that belief.

And others do.

So why should they accept something that implies the existence of that which they don't have belief does exist objectively.

You shouldn't, because God doesn't exist as far as you're aware.

Feel free to show that God exists objectively and then we can move onto that issue of subjective awareness of God (the "God does not exist for you" you so eagerly throw around).

I can't because God doesn't exist for you.
It's not a case of God exists, but God is hiding, or that God only makes Himself comprehensible to some and not others.
For you, God does not exist, period. There is no such thing as God, as far you're aware.

The fool doth say in his heart, THERE IS NO GOD.

No, I'm fairly sure that most here are able to realise that if God exists then he does not have the same nature of existence as a rock

What is the difference?

So how do you know that God objectively exists, and of the nature of that existence, and is not merely a wholly subjective interpretation of something else

How do you know objective reality exists
irrespective of the nature of that existence, and is not merely a wholly subjective interpretation of something else?

So you believe. How do you know that God Is, that God objectively exists

Knowing God Is, is natural. If I had to go out to find evidence of this thing called God, I would be just like you. An atheist for whom God does not exist. So I comprehend God naturally, but know of Him through information, and experience.

You mean as opposed to the other sense you possess?

Everything is processed via our intelligence.
I gather when you prove objective reality exists without making any subjective references, you will have to rely on it also.

And there you go back to the issue of subjective awareness rather than objectivity.
Show us that God has an objective existence, then we can move on.

Show us that objective existence has an objective existence, then we can move on.

Jan.

 

[Michael 345]

The idiot doth say in their brain

"god does exist because I think it

I can not show you god exist for you because for you

you do NOT think it"

Michael345 circa today 2017

 

[Sarkus]

I remember watching a documentary a while ago where someone commented that objective reality is essentially those realities and truths which are not affected by our objecting to them in belief or interpretation.

Now here you are saying the objective reality is fixed, and available equally to everyone.

Where have I said that it must be available to everyone? Availability is a subjective issue, yet we are trying to establish whether or not God has an objective existence. If God does not then we are only talking about the subjective. If God does have an objective existence then we can move onto the subjective matters such as availability, interpretation etc.

Can you prove objective reality exists without any appeal to the subjective?

No. Are you suggesting that it doesn't? If so then you are asserting that God is simply subjective. Is that what you're doing? Are you content to agree that God is purely subjective?

You have no idea that God does not exist objectively.

Correct. I also have no idea that God does exist objectively.

You only know that God does not exist.

I do not know that. Where have I ever asserted it or even implied it? You, though, do continually assert this about people, though. Despite them telling you otherwise.

And others do.

And that therefore makes it correct?
Furthermore, are you agreeing that you do think God exists objectively? Yet above you seem to be arguing for there being no objective reality?

You shouldn't, because God doesn't exist as far as you're aware.

So you keep bleating without actually listening to what people say.

I can't because God doesn't exist for you.

So you keep bleating.
Please prove that God exists objectively and then we can move onto the subjective issues.

It's not a case of God exists, but God is hiding, or that God only makes Himself comprehensible to some and not others.
For you, God does not exist, period. There is no such thing as God, as far you're aware.

There is such a thing, but whether it is merely a concept that man has concocted, or whether it has an objective reality, I do not know.

The fool doth say in his heart, THERE IS NO GOD.

Despite your continuing use of the insult, where have I said that there is no God? Still arguing your strawman, I see. How's that going for you?

What is the difference?

I do not know, only that it would be.
[quotewHow do you know objective reality exists
irrespective of the nature of that existence, and is not merely a wholly subjective interpretation of something else?[/quote]I don't, Jan. I'm not the one flip-flopping between God being objective and God being wholly subjective.
Do you think God has an objective existence? Me, I don't know. You seem to know, or at least you claim you do. Either God has an objective existence and our comprehension of God is subjective, or God does not have an objective existence and thus God is wholly subjective.
Which are you going to plump for, or are you going to continue to argue both, and thus continue to make a mockery of your own arguments? Note that I'm not the one claiming that there is an objective reality or not, but we need to understand whether God has an objective existence, otherwise we can limit ourselves purely to the subjective. But you seem reluctant to concur that God is a wholly subjective matter. You seem to believe that God has an objective existence.
And here you are asking me to prove that there is an objective reality??

Knowing God Is, is natural.

No, according to the studies that you put forth as evidence, believing in some superhuman is natural. Even if we concede, for purposes of argument only, that this superhuman is taken to be God, you've still only got belief, not knowledge. Just because people believe something doesn't make it true. You know that.

If I had to go out to find evidence of this thing called God, I would be just like you. An atheist for whom God does not exist. So I comprehend God naturally, but know of Him through information, and experience.

So you rely on your mind filling in gaps to explain what you can't otherwise comprehend (this being the "natural belief that God Is" and then merely reinforce that a priori belief with circular reasoning.
Finally, we get there. Thank you. And you have merely confirmed that which most of us suspected, that you are simply caught in a circular argument, reliant upon an a priori belief the veracity of which you are unwilling to question other than via the circular arguments.
No worries. We get it. Thanks for sharing.

Everything is processed via our intelligence.
I gather when you prove objective reality exists without making any subjective references, you will have to rely on it also.
...
Show us that objective existence has an objective existence, then we can move on.

Burden of proof, Jan, lies with the one making the claim. You argue that God has an objective existence, through being unable/unwilling to argue that God is wholly subjective. I have merely asked you to show that. I have no onus to prove that objective reality actually exists. You will do that when you show that God has an objective existence.

Otherwise you could of course concur that God is wholly subjective. Is that the line you want to take? Up to you, it's your argument. But what we won't contend with is you flip-flopping between the two to avoid addressing points raised.

 

[Sarkus]

The idiot doth say in their brain

"god does exist because I think it

I can not show you god exist for you because for you

you do NOT think it"

Michael345 circa today 2017

Deepity.

 

[spidergoat]

The fool doth say in his heart, THERE IS NO GOD.

Oh no, I'm being called a fool! That's a good reason for believing something.