What would convince you?

[VitalOne]

:yawn:
Same ol' argument, VO.

Why do you repeat the same topic over and over again - with the same generalisation of atheism?

Well this time I made a post entirely devoted it to it...

Evidence for design would be quite powerful in changing the view of many atheists. However, there is NO evidence for design.

There's lots of evidence for design, the anthropic principle for instance shows that if any of the constants were changed there would be no more intelligent life...

VitalOne, maybe you should read this. I think you will see that there are many ways to be an atheist and reasons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

I'm not really interested in atheistic propaganda or attempts to convert others into the atheistic faith-based belief system (or become like Stalin, Lenin, and other atheists)

How many times have you been through this VitalOne? You could at least try not to sound like a religious nutter.

We discussed this a few months ago but you stopped responding. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=67056&page=5

I answered this - "It is not up to the atheists to specify the evidence but I will play along this time. God could appear at the UN, he could part one of the bigger oceans, if someone could produce some of the miracles described in the Bible that would certainly be worth investigating. He could cause amputee’s limbs to grow back. The rapture. Perhaps he could actually stop punishing starving children who have done nothing wrong! If this god exists as described in your religious texts then he is capable on many supernatural feats that simply do not happen. "

But it is up to atheists, they make the claim that they would believe if there was evidence....

Also all the stuff is evidence of the supernatural (and if it becomes a scientific fact then it is no longer supernatural), if I with my will regrow an amputee's limb, then later on it becomes a scientific fact that you can regrow amputees limbs using your will, it will no longer supernatural (although still true)...

Also as other atheists pointed out none of that God caused it...

So you wont accept anything supernatural as an answer?

No, I will, but evidence of the supernatural is not evidence of God.....

 

[VitalOne]

You maintain an unfounded belief in an invisible, all-powerful creature, and I'm the fool?

Sounds like you need a dictionary.

Argument from personal incredulity.....

Also an argument from ignorance ("something is false until proven true" or in other words an absence of evidence for an unverifiable claim ("God") means God doesn't exist)

And, yes, you certainly are the fool...

Interesting comments, considering I teach logic.

Firstly, I made no reference whatsoever to secondary characteristics. The analogy was strictly ontological, i.e.: both the Easter Bunny and 'god' are empty concepts used by people as an explanatory agent within a specific mythological context. Perhaps you would prefer that I had used 'unicorn' instead of 'Easter Bunny'. Regardless, you fail to even comprehend a simple metaphorical comparison.

Are you sure you teach logic, then you could learn a few things...

You directly equated the Easter Bunny to God...the comparison fails on every level...also I don't think it's absurd at all to attempt to verify a claim...

Secondly, you obviously have no concept whatsoever of what a non-sequitor might be: your "foolish logic" (a contradictory semantic by the way..) statement not only fails to qualify as a member of such a fallacy, but it also fails to qualify as a remotely logical statement. You attempted to structure a materially implicative statement, but forgot to include a premiss.

And by the by, if you could learn to read, you might notice that I didn't have any such line of argument in my post.

Your logic matches precisely what non-sequitur is...the existence or non-existence of the Easter Bunny has absolutely nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God, yet you for some reason (being a fool) say that it is the same as the Easter Bunny...that's what a non-sequitur is...

You say that the reason you don't believe in God is because you don't believe in the Easter Bunny despite there being no connection...nice non-sequitur...

The attempt to use evidence to support an imaginary entity is indeed absurd.
Again, I must refer you to a rdictionary.

Great circular logic...

Are you sure that you teach logic?

 

[shaman_]

All this talk and these atheists still don't give me examples...the conclusion is blah blah...

You were given some examples but chose to ignore them.

 

[glaucon]

Argument from personal incredulity.....

Also an argument from ignorance ("something is false until proven true" or in other words an absence of evidence for an unverifiable claim ("God") means God doesn't exist)

Wrong on both counts.
You're charges would be correct, if and only if I was denying the existence of god.

And, yes, you certainly are the fool...

And that.. would be ad hominem.... the last resort of the illogical.

Are you sure you teach logic, then you could learn a few things...

We all could. But on logic, I'm fine thanks.

You directly equated the Easter Bunny to God...the comparison fails on every level...also I don't think it's absurd at all to attempt to verify a claim...

Read again; I made no such equation.

Of course it's not absurd to attempt to verify a claim. I never made such a claim.

Your logic matches precisely what non-sequitur is...the existence or non-existence of the Easter Bunny has absolutely nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of God, yet you for some reason (being a fool) say that it is the same as the Easter Bunny...that's what a non-sequitur is...

Incorrect.

non-sequitor has nothing to do with any relational function; what is required is that one draws a conclusion illicitly from premisses that have no relation to the content of the conclusion.

And again, I did not equate god with the Easter Bunny.

You say that the reason you don't believe in God is because you don't believe in the Easter Bunny despite there being no connection...nice non-sequitur...

I never said any such thing, in fact, at no point did I say anything whatsoever about whether or not I believe in god. That would be irrelevant here.


Look guy, I didn't come here to belittle your beliefs. In fact, in the face of a complete lack of evidence, your faith is to be admired. However, that isn't the question you put to us in this thread; in fact, I haven't even yet answered your original question. The whole reason I jumped into this discussion was simply because there was lots of bandying about of, and misuse of logic. If you are seriously here to try and substantiate your claim that atheists operate on 'pure blind atheistic faith' (and I do believe you have an argument here...) then you must realize that regardless of how you try to turn it, ultimately the evidenciary onus is upon you, and not the non-believers.

 

[VitalOne]

You were given some examples but chose to ignore them.

What examples? The amputees thing? If that happened tomorrow atheists would say so what, it doesn't show that God exists, only that it's possible to heal amputees...it also doesn't show how anything outside of nature or supernatural occurred....

 

[shaman_]

Other examples were given by other posters and you ignored them and said "All this talk and these atheists still don't give me examples...... " I don't care if you reply to every post but don't say things that are clearly untrue.

But it is up to atheists, they make the claim that they would believe if there was evidence....

But I don’t think it should be up to atheists to define the evidence for a deity that they don’t believe in. I gave you some possible examples of evidence anyway - which you discarded. It should be up to the theists to state their evidence. There are many religions that you reject. Should it be up to you to name the evidence for the existence of Ra, Thor and Quetzalcoatl? Wouldn’t it make more sense for the believers of those religions to show you their evidence instead?

By your logic, if you don’t name the evidence for these religions then you are relying on pure, blind atheistic faith.

Also all the stuff is evidence of the supernatural (and if it becomes a scientific fact then it is no longer supernatural), if I with my will regrow an amputee's limb, then later on it becomes a scientific fact that you can regrow amputees limbs using your will, it will no longer supernatural (although still true)...
Also as other atheists pointed out none of that God caused it...


No, I will, but evidence of the supernatural is not evidence of God.....

So could you suggest evidence for the existence of Ra, Thor and Quetzalcoatl? If you answer with anything sounding ‘supernatural’ I am going to dismiss it (because the supernatural doesn’t count according to you) and then say that you are relying of pure, blind atheistic faith. You are displaying the same behavior as those that you criticize.

Now VitalOne, in the the past you have refused to look at an example of faith that mirrors your own. Try to see my point here. This is the argument you are putting forward.

 

[bsemak]

VitalOne,

That was neither propaganda, nor an attempt to convert. You obvioulsly have no clue on what it means to be an atheist. You just want to be right. I dont give a toss on your personal believes, you can keep them thats foine with me. You are not here to discuss, that is not on your agenda.

 

[Xelios]

Atheists often say that they would believe in God if there was evidence, so what's an example of evidence that would fully convince you that God or anything supernatural exists?

If you can't give an example, then you're just relying on blind faith....pure blind atheistic faith...

Actually, I'd be relying on a pure lack of faith. There's no faith involved in refusing to believe something that has no evidence.

What would convince me? I don't know if anything short of God himself appearing on my doorstep would. The whole idea doesn't make any logical sense to me, and that would be a first step in even considering any so-called evidence of God's existence.

 

[lightgigantic]

Maybe we cant explain why we are here, simply because there is no reason.

if the reason is that there is no reason, its not science

 

[Sarkus]

if the reason is that there is no reason, its not science

Drivel.

Science explains the HOW - not the WHY!

 

[Sarkus]

There's lots of evidence for design, the anthropic principle for instance shows that if any of the constants were changed there would be no more intelligent life...

LOL!
And while it may be true that changing a universal constant would result in no intelligent life - how is that in any way evidence for design?

 

[Enmos]

If God were to appear on the six o'clock news to tell us all that he really does exist i would believe in him. Although he would still have to prove himself God.

 

[bsemak]

if the reason is that there is no reason, its not science

Why's that? Who talked about science? What I meant was, that there may be no higher reason for us being here. Only if you a priori accept the existence of god. And that is not proof of him.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

What would convince you. I don't know. Good Question.

 

[Carcano]

By this logic we should conclude that the geocentric theory and the theory of relativity are both the SAME, simply because they're both theories, so all the differences don't matter at all...

The differences dont matter if both theories are unsupported by evidence...both being equally invalid.

 

[Carcano]

The attempt to use evidence to support an imaginary entity is indeed absurd.

You refuse the possibility of evidence by assuming the subject is imaginary.

This would be like a detective refusing to look at any evidence because he assumes the innocence of all suspects.

 

[Nasor]

All this talk and these atheists still don't give me examples...

WTF? I gave you a list of examples. Do you even read your own thread?

 

[audible]

You refuse the possibility of evidence by assuming the subject is imaginary.

there is no objective evidence, but there is ton's of subjective evidence, thus it can only be deemed imaginary.
You’re asking all of us to forgo rationality, and accept subjective evidence, to verify more subjective evidence.
Laughable in the extreme.

This would be like a detective refusing to look at any evidence because he assumes the innocence of all suspects.

no a detective would avoid subjective evidence as it usually gets thrown out of court, as hearsay, etc..

 

[(Q)]

The evidence that convinced me is my personal experiences, but personal experiences mean absolutely nothing to an atheist...

If the personal experience was one which lead to the undeniable fact that god existed, it would mean a lot.

So, what personal experiences are you referring?

Currently I am unable to think of a way to objectively measure if God, free-will, or the supernatural exists....but there are ways to measure if prayer, miracles, etc...works...

Tests with prayers have been conducted, the tests were null.

 

[Carcano]

there is no objective evidence

The original question isnt about the existence of objective evidence...the question is what evidence would convince you?

Youre not being asked to assess whatever type of evidence may be at hand...only what evidence you would accept.