Fine tuned universe

[trdsf]

There's no event that might be ascribed to a divine author that couldn't just as easily and legitimately be ascribed to a much more advanced alien intelligence -- probably more legitimately, since that at least relies on an explanation that's internal to this universe and suggests that a rational physical explanation ultimately exists.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There's no event that might be ascribed to a divine author that couldn't just as easily and legitimately be ascribed to a much more advanced alien intelligence -- probably more legitimately, since that at least relies on an explanation that's internal to this universe and suggests that a rational physical explanation ultimately exists.

The Thin Blue Line don't listen to facts.

[Clinton Huxley]

As far as I can tell, Seth believes in anything that hasn't been specifically ruled out, presumably even things that contradict each other.

Sounds exhausting. He'll need an Electric Monk.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

As far as I can tell, Seth believes in anything that hasn't been specifically ruled out, presumably even things that contradict each other.

Sounds exhausting. He'll need an Electric Monk.

Not "believe", just "asserts". If you believe everything you believe nothing.

[Coito ergo sum]

Well when god decides to let me in on his little club I will believe. Until then it's in the box marked 'pending evidence' with every other unsupported claim anyone has ever dreamt up.

Which is fine, but still the possibility remains so you can't say God does not exist. "Pending evidence" is a perfectly rational position to take however.

That's just semantics.

Look - everything is "pending evidence." There is a monster with googly eyes in the Andromeda galaxy, third planet from the left. Might be true. Can't say it does not exist, because it's pending evidence. But, there is no reason to believe in the googly eyed monster on the third planet from the left in the Andromeda galaxy. It, and "my God exists" are just arbitrary statements. Any arbitrary statement may be true and they are, by definition, "pending evidence."

Anything one says without evidence is by definition "pending evidence." So, Hercules went on a mission and found his way to Hades. We can't say it didn't happen, after all, we might find archaeological evidence for it, so it is "pending evidence."

Nobody is saying that there is no POSSIBILITY that God exists. Even in the God Delusion, Dawkins puts himself at 6.9 on scale of 1 to 7 -- 7 being absolute surety that no God exists. He isn't there. He places God with other mystical things, like the Easter Bunny. Both of which are "pending evidence" and both of which "might possibly" exist. But, we don't believe in them.

You constantly reiterate this silly argument about how we can't "prove that God doesn't exist," and that it might possibly exist. You're shadow boxing, because not even the most prominent and vociferous atheist of all atheists, Richard Dawkins, denies that.

[Coito ergo sum]

Thousands of years, no evidence. But that was pre-Seth, of course.

No evidence that YOU find satisfactory, which means absolutely nothing in the greater scheme of things.

Then it ought to mean nothing that someone finds some piece of evidence satisfactory.

You can't have it both ways. If no assessment that an item purporting to be evidence is "unsatisfactory" means anything, then it necessarily follows that no assessment that an item purporting to be evidence is "satisfactory" can mean anything either.

Yours is simply a recognition that we can't really know or be 100% sure of anything.

The problem is, you pretend that that isn't recognized by atheists or that atheism is not, like everything else in the universe, limited by that reality. And, it cuts all ways -- for example, you need to recognize, similarly, that God may not exist, and that if some says "God exists" that phrase must be qualified with "I have seen evidence satisfactory TO ME that the God I say exists, does in fact exist." You and your religious friends can't say "God exists" if we can't say "God does not exist" because we BOTH have to live under the rule of no-100%-certainty.

[Coito ergo sum]

As I said, no evidence that YOU find satisfactory. Resorting to "the Scientific Method" as the absolute and ultimate arbiter of what constitutes "evidence" is just a way of dismissing evidence you don't find compelling. As I've noted before, the voluntary interactions of an intelligence that does not wish to leave "scientific" evidence behind with humans on this planet would not be subject to the "Scientific Method" any more than my farting in bed last week would be subject to detection, analysis and quantification using the scientific method today. And yet I farted in bed last week. That you cannot prove it or find evidence that can be "subject to the rigours of the Scientific Method" does not mean it didn't happen, just as my thinking about Natalie Portman in the nude cannot be subjected to those rigors either, and yet I so thought just now.

Yes, but it would be unreasonable for us to believe you farted in bed last week, since we have no evidence of it. You may well have. But, you may not have, and you may be lying. You may never have farted in bed last week, and you may be just saying that as an example. Also, you may have dreamed it. You may have been having a dream about farting in bed, and you may have woke up thinking it was real. You may have hallucinated. Any number of things may have happened. You may be sure of what you experienced, but we can't be. Therefore, it is not reasonable for us to believe that you farted. We can only believe that you say you farted.

And, you keep up with this nonsense - again - about "does not mean it didn't happen." Saying "I don't believe Seth farted" is not the same thing as saying "I know it did not happen." Same thing with your God. Saying "I don't believe in God" is not the same thing as saying "I know for sure there is no God."

Even atheists don't speak in those absolutes (except perhaps in colloquial or shorthand conversational English) -- remember the atheist bus thing in England that Richard Dawkins helped promote? They put the billboard on the bus that said "There PROBABLY is no god. So, stop worrying and enjoy life."

This idea that you have stuck in your head that atheists claim perfect knowledge is just more shadow boxing on your part. Your pushing at an open door. As I mentioned, even Dawkins says 6.9 out of 7 on surety. If he claimed that he could prove that there were no gods, then he would say he was a 7.

So, perhaps you can consider that bit clarified on your part? You keep responding to people as if they have made the claim that "God absolutely does not exist, and I can prove it." If you would point to a post here where someone has said that, then you'd have a point. But, I don't think anyone has. So can you not respond to people by arguing against a position they didn't take?

[Coito ergo sum]

By your logic then one should believe in something even where its impossible to validate it

No, I just say that just because YOU cannot validate it, or that just because science cannot validate it TODAY does not make it inexorably impossible to validate "it" somehow or some time.

Not a single person on this thread, and I suspect not a single atheist on this forum has suggested otherwise.

Is there someone making this argument? If so, point him or her out. There is no reason to counter one person's argument by arguing against a point he or she did not make. It's pointless.

Nobody says that "it is inexorably impossible to validate it." It most certainly may be possible to validate "it." However, that possibility does not warrant belief. That possibility warrants skepticism and withholding belief until such time as there is validation.

[Seth]

14 pages of verbiage to say we can't prove God doesn't exist, which everyone agrees with anyway?
Nice.

Everyone agrees? Hardly. It's been a tough slog to get anyone to admit that they can't prove that God doesn't exist, much less admit that their own ethos and the "scientific method" precludes them from rationally claiming that God does not exist.

And then there's the whole denial of the argument for intelligent design I've laid out, which denial is every bit as religious as the claim that God exists.

Just getting to this point, where Atheists are admitting that they can't prove God doesn't exist (which by the way is different from asserting that God can never be proven to exist, another false Atheist claim) is a major victory. Usually these debates end with the Atheists resorting to ad hom insult and abandoning the debate entirely with hand-waving assertions that there is "no evidence" that God exists and that the burden is on theists to provide such evidence despite the fact that theists are under no such obligation whatsoever.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

There is no evidence any god or gods exist.

[Seth]

By your logic then one should believe in something even where its impossible to validate it

No, I just say that just because YOU cannot validate it, or that just because science cannot validate it TODAY does not make it inexorably impossible to validate "it" somehow or some time.

Not a single person on this thread, and I suspect not a single atheist on this forum has suggested otherwise.

You have. I'm not going to bother rooting through the various threads to extract the places where you have flatly and baldly asserted that God does not exist, but you know perfectly well you have said so.

Is there someone making this argument? If so, point him or her out. There is no reason to counter one person's argument by arguing against a point he or she did not make. It's pointless.

Nobody says that "it is inexorably impossible to validate it." It most certainly may be possible to validate "it." However, that possibility does not warrant belief. That possibility warrants skepticism and withholding belief until such time as there is validation.

Indeed. But it does not warrant making the claim that God does not exist, which necessarily implies that it's impossible to validate the existence of God, since the claim is that God does not exist. And when you make that claim, as you have done on several occasions, the burden of proof is upon you to prove that God does not in fact exist. Pointing out that your classic "there is no evidence" skeptical claim is neither accurate nor inexorably or forever true is merely making sure that you don't get away with claiming victory in the debate. There is evidence, just not evidence that you find satisfactory (but many other people do) or are willing to consider as evidence of God's existence despite science being unable to conclusively prove that God does not exist.

Whether God exists is still an open question, and as I've said many times, the ONLY rational claim that anyone can make about the existence or non-existence of God is "I don't know," because in fact neither you nor anyone else does actually know, as a matter of fact, whether or not God exists.

So, when you finally decide to admit the truth and make the statement that sticks in your craw and chokes you into obfuscation on every occasion, then the debate will be over. Just go ahead and say it, it really won't hurt at all. Say "I don't know whether or not God exists." Nobody's going to burn you at the stake for doing so.

[Seth]

There is no evidence any god or gods exist.

Sure there is, it's just that you aren't willing to accept the evidence that exists as evidence because your religious beliefs forbid you from such heresy.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Bless the thin blue line.

[Coito ergo sum]

14 pages of verbiage to say we can't prove God doesn't exist, which everyone agrees with anyway?
Nice.

Everyone agrees? Hardly.

Who doesn't? Who are you arguing with? Someone here, or someone on some other website?

It's been a tough slog to get anyone to admit that they can't prove that God doesn't exist,

A tough slog where? Here? I and everyone else I know around here has never denied that. I've admitted it since I've been posting here.

much less admit that their own ethos and the "scientific method" precludes them from rationally claiming that God does not exist.

That is dead wrong. It is rational to claim that gods do not exist because of the lack of evidence in favor of the proposition. That doesn't mean that that we have 100% proof that gods exist. It just means that there isn't evidence (satisfactory to me/us, of course) that gods do exist. If you have evidence that is satisfactory to you, then you ought to hold the other opinion.

And then there's the whole denial of the argument for intelligent design I've laid out, which denial is every bit as religious as the claim that God exists.

Negative again. You have no evidence for it, and beyond that, you have no theoretical physics or math to justify it on a theoretical level. Merely writing down some assertion or another is not an "argument." You merely state it.

Just getting to this point, where Atheists are admitting that they can't prove God doesn't exist (which by the way is different from asserting that God can never be proven to exist, another false Atheist claim)

Who claims that "God can never be proven to exist?" Your God can be proven to exist if proof is found. Everyone knows that. This is yet another straw man on your part.

is a major victory. Usually these debates end with the Atheists resorting to ad hom insult and abandoning the debate entirely with hand-waving assertions that there is "no evidence" that God exists and that the burden is on theists to provide such evidence despite the fact that theists are under no such obligation whatsoever.

There is no evidence that I've seen that your God exists. That isn't "hand waving." That's just the facts. You may claim otherwise, and you may claim to have seen the evidence. If so, I ask you - for about the 100th time - to present it, describe it, cite to it, or explain it. You never have. Until you do, I don't believe it. Might you be right, and you're just unwilling or unable to convey to me this evidence you claim to have? Sure. Maybe. But, that isn't any reason for me to believe it. So, I don't.

Theists aren't under any "obligations" -- if they have evidence that they don't want to present, then that's their business. However, it's irrational to believe things without evidence, so while they may feel themselves justified, others are not and it would be irrational to take someone's word for it who says "I know it to be true, and I have the evidence, but I am unable or unwilling to convey it to you."

Likewise, atheists are also under "no obligation" to prove their position to you or any other theist or polytheist. The difference is, atheists generally don't make an affirmative claim. They generally just say that "I don't believe in God," in which case they are saying that they haven't sufficient reason to believe in God. Some say, "I believe God doesn't exist," which means that based on what people have advanced as evidence on the issue, I have concluded that God probably doesn't exist.

Do they preclude all possibility that God doesn't exist. I'll point out again that Dawkins puts himself at 6.9 out of 7, leaving open that possibility that God might be proven to exist.

All your arguments are strawman garbage, Seth. Nobody here, and almost no atheists generally, claim that there is no possibility that gods exist. Nobody here, and almost no atheists generally, claim that it would be impossible to prove that gods exist. This stuff you puke up around here is just plain nonsense.

[Coito ergo sum]

There is no evidence any god or gods exist.

Sure there is...

Snip...

If you would be so kind, Seth, as to explain to me what the evidence is? I'd like to make sure I'm not missing something.