God and the World, what do you think? [Does God Exist II]

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

There is an unfortunate tendency in the Internet's atheist (and general skeptic) community to believe that "evidence" means strong evidence, or overwhelming evidence, or proof, and that lack of evidence is equivalent to disproof. This is incorrect. If something does not have much evidence, this does not equivalent to a disproof of that thing. For a long time, heliocentrism was against the balance of the evidence. For a long time, the existence of atoms was against the balance of the evidence. Relativity was true before Einstein. If the balance of evidence is against a proposition, all that means is that it is justified not to believe that proposition.

That's really all that the skeptical community is claiming.

We are not saying that theists should not be free to accrue evidence and publish their findings.

Only that we are justified in not believing.

[The Rich Port]

There is an unfortunate tendency in the Internet's atheist (and general skeptic) community to believe that "evidence" means strong evidence, or overwhelming evidence, or proof, and that lack of evidence is equivalent to disproof. This is incorrect. If something does not have much evidence, this does not equivalent to a disproof of that thing. For a long time, heliocentrism was against the balance of the evidence. For a long time, the existence of atoms was against the balance of the evidence. Relativity was true before Einstein. If the balance of evidence is against a proposition, all that means is that it is justified not to believe that proposition.

That's really all that the skeptical community is claiming.

We are not saying that theists should not be free to accrue evidence and publish their findings.

Only that we are justified in not believing.

And they're not justified in believing.

Don't forget that part.

[Shaggai]

The people I was talking about apparently believed that God was entirely impossible. This is not what you are arguing.

Almost every specific deity is. The Christian one most certainly is (having internal logical contradictions is pretty close to being exactly the definition of the word "impossible").

Of course.

[Barraco Barner]

That's really all that the skeptical community is claiming.

We are not saying that theists should not be free to accrue evidence and publish their findings.

Only that we are justified in not believing.

And they're not justified in believing.

Don't forget that part.

As you are not justified in not believing.

Your logic is not quite applicable to anything with two sides.

Almost every specific deity is. The Christian one most certainly is (having internal logical contradictions is pretty close to being exactly the definition of the word "impossible").

Can you elaborate on why it is the Christian one, rather than any other?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Because evidence is what really matters, while idle reasoning can only go so far. Lack of evidence is what damns every theological argument to dismissal.

There is an unfortunate tendency in the Internet's atheist (and general skeptic) community to believe that "evidence" means strong evidence, or overwhelming evidence, or proof, and that lack of evidence is equivalent to disproof. This is incorrect. If something does not have much evidence, this does not equivalent to a disproof of that thing. For a long time, heliocentrism was against the balance of the evidence. For a long time, the existence of atoms was against the balance of the evidence. Relativity was true before Einstein. If the balance of evidence is against a proposition, all that means is that it is justified not to believe that proposition. In 1500, people were justified in rejecting heliocentrism. In 1750, people were justified in believing that atoms did not exist. In 1900, people were justified in not believing that velocity distorts time.

Ah yes, the old,"We don't have the means to determine it yet" argument. Two things:

1) You know what else people believed was true? That God exists. We are in the process of challenging that.
2) The examples you mentioned were substantiated by scientific research. The idea of a god was made up by superstitious Bronze Age desert folk.

(Of course, the majority of hypotheses which are against the balance of evidence are just wrong. There are countless hypotheses that were against the balance of evidence in 1500, and in 1750, and in 1900, and are still against the balance of evidence. But that doesn't equal disproof, since they could be reevaluated if new evidence showed up.)

I never said it was disproof, I said it was grounds for dismissal. Say all you want about theories taking years to back up, but until you have some ground to stand on your hypothesis is boloney.

[Barraco Barner]

There is an unfortunate tendency in the Internet's atheist (and general skeptic) community to believe that "evidence" means strong evidence, or overwhelming evidence, or proof, and that lack of evidence is equivalent to disproof. This is incorrect. If something does not have much evidence, this does not equivalent to a disproof of that thing. For a long time, heliocentrism was against the balance of the evidence. For a long time, the existence of atoms was against the balance of the evidence. Relativity was true before Einstein. If the balance of evidence is against a proposition, all that means is that it is justified not to believe that proposition. In 1500, people were justified in rejecting heliocentrism. In 1750, people were justified in believing that atoms did not exist. In 1900, people were justified in not believing that velocity distorts time.

Ah yes, the old,"We don't have the means to determine it yet" argument. Two things:

1) You know what else people believed was true? That God exists. We are in the process of challenging that.
2) The examples you mentioned were substantiated by scientific research. The idea of a god was made up by superstitious Bronze Age desert folk.

(Of course, the majority of hypotheses which are against the balance of evidence are just wrong. There are countless hypotheses that were against the balance of evidence in 1500, and in 1750, and in 1900, and are still against the balance of evidence. But that doesn't equal disproof, since they could be reevaluated if new evidence showed up.)

I never said it was disproof, I said it was grounds for dismissal. Say all you want about theories taking years to back up, but until you have some ground to stand on your hypothesis is boloney.

You are in the process of challenging the existence of an extra-dimensional being? Have fun with that.

[The Rich Port]

And they're not justified in believing.

Don't forget that part.

As you are not justified in not believing.

Your logic is not quite applicable to anything with two sides.

Can you elaborate on why it is the Christian one, rather than any other?

In terms of evidentiary grounds and logic, we are absolutely justified in not believing.

It's unreasonable to assume God exists.

If other religious people can deal with that, you deal with it, because you have nothing else, as ironic as it is.

... He said almost any specific deity, the Christian God among them.

[Shaggai]

There is an unfortunate tendency in the Internet's atheist (and general skeptic) community to believe that "evidence" means strong evidence, or overwhelming evidence, or proof, and that lack of evidence is equivalent to disproof. This is incorrect. If something does not have much evidence, this does not equivalent to a disproof of that thing. For a long time, heliocentrism was against the balance of the evidence. For a long time, the existence of atoms was against the balance of the evidence. Relativity was true before Einstein. If the balance of evidence is against a proposition, all that means is that it is justified not to believe that proposition.

That's really all that the skeptical community is claiming.

We are not saying that theists should not be free to accrue evidence and publish their findings.

Only that we are justified in not believing.

Of course. But that is not what I was responding to.

There is an unfortunate tendency in the Internet's atheist (and general skeptic) community to believe that "evidence" means strong evidence, or overwhelming evidence, or proof, and that lack of evidence is equivalent to disproof. This is incorrect. If something does not have much evidence, this does not equivalent to a disproof of that thing. For a long time, heliocentrism was against the balance of the evidence. For a long time, the existence of atoms was against the balance of the evidence. Relativity was true before Einstein. If the balance of evidence is against a proposition, all that means is that it is justified not to believe that proposition. In 1500, people were justified in rejecting heliocentrism. In 1750, people were justified in believing that atoms did not exist. In 1900, people were justified in not believing that velocity distorts time.

(Of course, the majority of hypotheses which are against the balance of evidence are just wrong. There are countless hypotheses that were against the balance of evidence in 1500, and in 1750, and in 1900, and are still against the balance of evidence. But that doesn't equal disproof, since they could be reevaluated if new evidence showed up.)

And guess what. A lot of these were not rejected because of a lack of evidence. Heliocentrism is the big one.

The evidence for these eventually arose through scientific inquiry, not through wishful thinking or prayer.

And nowadays we have people who still don't believe in atoms, heliocentrism, and relativity.

Heliocentrism was, in fact, rejected because it didn't fit the evidence. Some people did reject it for other reasons, notably Martin Luther, but the common narrative around Galileo, etc. is pretty wrong.

[Barraco Barner]

As you are not justified in not believing.

Your logic is not quite applicable to anything with two sides.



Can you elaborate on why it is the Christian one, rather than any other?

In terms of evidentiary grounds and logic, we are absolutely justified in not believing.

It's unreasonable to assume God exists.

If other religious people can deal with that, you deal with it, because you have nothing else, as ironic as it is.

... He said almost any specific deity, the Christian God among them.

>It's unreasonable to assume God exists
And it is also unreasonable to assume that a God does not exist, since the core fundamental traits of God is a being not bound to the third dimension.

>you deal with it, because you have nothing else
Your extrapolation informed me a lot.

>He said almost any specific deity

Vague?

[Shaggai]

There is an unfortunate tendency in the Internet's atheist (and general skeptic) community to believe that "evidence" means strong evidence, or overwhelming evidence, or proof, and that lack of evidence is equivalent to disproof. This is incorrect. If something does not have much evidence, this does not equivalent to a disproof of that thing. For a long time, heliocentrism was against the balance of the evidence. For a long time, the existence of atoms was against the balance of the evidence. Relativity was true before Einstein. If the balance of evidence is against a proposition, all that means is that it is justified not to believe that proposition. In 1500, people were justified in rejecting heliocentrism. In 1750, people were justified in believing that atoms did not exist. In 1900, people were justified in not believing that velocity distorts time.

Ah yes, the old,"We don't have the means to determine it yet" argument. Two things:

1) You know what else people believed was true? That God exists. We are in the process of challenging that.
2) The examples you mentioned were substantiated by scientific research. The idea of a god was made up by superstitious Bronze Age desert folk.

(Of course, the majority of hypotheses which are against the balance of evidence are just wrong. There are countless hypotheses that were against the balance of evidence in 1500, and in 1750, and in 1900, and are still against the balance of evidence. But that doesn't equal disproof, since they could be reevaluated if new evidence showed up.)

I never said it was disproof, I said it was grounds for dismissal. Say all you want about theories taking years to back up, but until you have some ground to stand on your hypothesis is boloney.

Here. Let me show you a quote:

The people I was talking about apparently believed that God was entirely impossible. This is not what you are arguing.

I share the same sentiment as them.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

And it is also unreasonable to assume that a God does not exist, since the core fundamental traits of God is a being not bound to the third dimension.

By that logic, it's also unreasonable to assume that a transcendental unicorn, which would also not be 'bound by the third dimension', does not exist.

[Mavorpen]

>It's unreasonable to assume God exists
And it is also unreasonable to assume that a God does not exist, since the core fundamental traits of God is a being not bound to the third dimension.

Actually that makes it definitely reasonable. If you don't have any evidence, it doesn't matter how much you dodge the burden of proof.

[Vilatania]

And they're not justified in believing.

Don't forget that part.

As you are not justified in not believing.

Your logic is not quite applicable to anything with two sides.

Can you elaborate on why it is the Christian one, rather than any other?

Actually we are justified in not believing for the same reason that Christians are not justified in believing. Because in the absence of evidence, disbelief is logical.

[The Rich Port]

That's really all that the skeptical community is claiming.

We are not saying that theists should not be free to accrue evidence and publish their findings.

Only that we are justified in not believing.

Of course. But that is not what I was responding to.

And guess what. A lot of these were not rejected because of a lack of evidence. Heliocentrism is the big one.

The evidence for these eventually arose through scientific inquiry, not through wishful thinking or prayer.

And nowadays we have people who still don't believe in atoms, heliocentrism, and relativity.

Heliocentrism was, in fact, rejected because it didn't fit the evidence. Some people did reject it for other reasons, notably Martin Luther, but the common narrative around Galileo, etc. is pretty wrong.

Rejected by the Catholic Church, true bastions of progress and scientific achievement.

If you'll notice, instead of trying to test and experiment to somehow disprove Galileo, they locked him up.

That's not what scientists do.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Ah yes, the old,"We don't have the means to determine it yet" argument. Two things:

1) You know what else people believed was true? That God exists. We are in the process of challenging that.
2) The examples you mentioned were substantiated by scientific research. The idea of a god was made up by superstitious Bronze Age desert folk.

I never said it was disproof, I said it was grounds for dismissal. Say all you want about theories taking years to back up, but until you have some ground to stand on your hypothesis is boloney.

You are in the process of challenging the existence of an extra-dimensional being? Have fun with that.

OK.

Claim: There is no god.
Basis: There is no evidence for the existence of a god.
Evidence: It is a claim in the negative, and so doesn't need evidence.
Conclusion: There is no god.

Shah mat, theists.

[Shaggai]

Of course. But that is not what I was responding to.

Heliocentrism was, in fact, rejected because it didn't fit the evidence. Some people did reject it for other reasons, notably Martin Luther, but the common narrative around Galileo, etc. is pretty wrong.

Rejected by the Catholic Church, true bastions of progress and scientific achievement.

If you'll notice, instead of trying to test and experiment to somehow disprove Galileo, they locked him up.

That's not what scientists do.

Go read the actual link.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Ah yes, the old,"We don't have the means to determine it yet" argument. Two things:

1) You know what else people believed was true? That God exists. We are in the process of challenging that.
2) The examples you mentioned were substantiated by scientific research. The idea of a god was made up by superstitious Bronze Age desert folk.

I never said it was disproof, I said it was grounds for dismissal. Say all you want about theories taking years to back up, but until you have some ground to stand on your hypothesis is boloney.

Here. Let me show you a quote:

I share the same sentiment as them.

And? God IS impossible. I see no dissonance her.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Rejected by the Catholic Church, true bastions of progress and scientific achievement.

If you'll notice, instead of trying to test and experiment to somehow disprove Galileo, they locked him up.

That's not what scientists do.

Go read the actual link.

A heliocentric model versus other heliocentric models. Seems like people were confident heliocentricism was the way to go.

[The Rich Port]

Rejected by the Catholic Church, true bastions of progress and scientific achievement.

If you'll notice, instead of trying to test and experiment to somehow disprove Galileo, they locked him up.

That's not what scientists do.

Go read the actual link.

I really don't care what one website that I've never heard of before has to say about Galileo that differs from the dozen books and the one science textbook said about Galileo that I've formed my opinion on.

Go read the actual link.

A heliocentric model versus other heliocentric models. Seems like people were confident heliocentricism was the way to go.

They were, but not the Catholic Church.

And not on any evidentiary basis either.

They labeled him a heretic, not a "man who has little evidence to prove heliocentrism is correct".

Because Copernicus and his studies on the subject actually were NOT lacking in evidence.

[Vilatania]

Here. Let me show you a quote:

And? God IS impossible. I see no dissonance her.

We can't test that. We just know that the God in the bible is impossible.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

And? God IS impossible. I see no dissonance her.

We can't test that. We just know that the God in the bible is impossible.

Any evidence to the contrary?

[The Rich Port]

And? God IS impossible. I see no dissonance her.

We can't test that. We just know that the God in the bible is impossible.

So now we've come across the problem of defining what God is.

There is no grounding for defining God, not anymore.

The only platform for it is always based on the old theological fundamentals that assume God is in fact real, which are flawed in and of themselves.

Which has led to apologists attempting to create a new God completely from scratch...

The result has been things like the Intelligent Design movement.

And that was eventually proven to be Creationism in a labcoat anyway.

[Barraco Barner]

You are in the process of challenging the existence of an extra-dimensional being? Have fun with that.

OK.

Claim: There is no god.
Basis: There is no evidence for the existence of a god.
Evidence: It is a claim in the negative, and so doesn't need evidence.
Conclusion: There is no god.

Shah mat, theists.

And yet you did not cover one single point about an extra-dimensional being's mechanics or influences.

Nice dodging.

[The Rich Port]

OK.

Claim: There is no god.
Basis: There is no evidence for the existence of a god.
Evidence: It is a claim in the negative, and so doesn't need evidence.
Conclusion: There is no god.

Shah mat, theists.

And yet you did not cover one single point about an extra-dimensional being's mechanics or influences.

Nice dodging.

... What fucking mechanics and influences?

The ones that apologists had to pull out of their assholes once the God of the Gaps started shrinking faster than they could keep up?

The ones that conveniently can't be analyzed at all?

[Barraco Barner]

And yet you did not cover one single point about an extra-dimensional being's mechanics or influences.

Nice dodging.

... What fucking mechanics and influences?

The ones that apologists had to pull out of their assholes once the God of the Gaps started shrinking faster than they could keep up?

The ones that conveniently can't be analyzed at all?

No, the mechanics and influences of higher dimensions upon the third dimensional plane.

And you say that people pull things out...