Fine tuned universe

[klr]

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.

"Pulls up a chair and waits for Seth to answer ..."

[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.

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.

No, I haven't. You could go through all the various threads and extract whatever you want. I have asserted that I don't believe that gods exist and that based on what I know, I don't think there are any gods. I have never said "it is inexorably impossible to validate "it" somehow or some time..." --- I never said anything like that. Check all you want. I defy you to prove that I said anything like that.

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.

Indeed? So you agree that we should withhold belief in God? Yes?

But it does not warrant making the claim that God does not exist,

Sure it does. One can conclude that based on what we know now, Gods do not exist. That is what the claim "God does not exist" means."

I mean - it's like saying "there isn't a teapot revolving around Pluto right now." We can say that because there is no evidence or other reason to believe there is one there. Might there be one? Sure. Might we discover evidence of one some day? Sure. But, right now, we can say there is no teapot revolving around Pluto.

See?

which necessarily implies that it's impossible to validate the existence of God,

It doesn't imply that. "There isn't any life on Venus." It's just saying that based on what we know now, there isn't any life on Venus. Might there be? Sure.

You're parsing this into semantics, and God isn't proven or disproven by semantics.

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.

I have explained why I think there are no gods many times. I have never claimed that I can prove they don't 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 no evidence that I've seen. If you have any, bring it on.

I've never claimed that anything is inexorable or forever. I'm open to any evidence or reason. Show me your theoretical physics. Show me your empirical evidence.

Aren't you the one always asking for "critically robust evidence?" Let's see it. Until then, you haven't proved your claim. Without proof or reason, it is irrational to believe a claim to be true. Therefore, I do not believe the claim "God exists." That's the same as saying "I do not believe God exists," and "I believe that God does not exist." That's what makes an atheist.

There is evidence,

What evidence?

just not evidence that you find satisfactory (but many other people do)

We've been through this bullshit before. Look - saying "there is no evidence" doesn't mean that some guy doesn't CLAIM to have evidence, like some vision of a cross or personal catharsis. We've been through it. If you consider that to be evidence, then sure - there is evidence. I don't consider that to be evidence, because by evidence I, and most everyone else, means objective, or verifiable, information and not personal or subjective experience that can't be duplicated, verified, or double checked. So, when I say "there is no evidence." I mean that there is no objective, verifiable, double-checkable information in favor of a proposition. That's what most people mean. You're the only one who seems to think that a dream or a hallucination counts as evidence.

or are willing to consider as evidence of God's existence despite science being unable to conclusively prove that God does not exist.

I am wiling to consider any claimed evidence of God's existence, and I am willing to consider any claimed evidence of any other gods' existence. I don't accept everything as evidence, though. Like, if someone says "see, my mom had cancer and it went into remission after I prayed." I don't consider that "evidence." You might. But, then again, you don't have much of a standard, apparently. If you do consider it evidence, then I would consider it evidence of zero persuasive value - and evidence of zero persuasive value is equivalent to no evidence.

Whether God exists is still an open question,

Always will be. But, it's still irrational to believe in it. It's always an open question because of the way people define God. When you define something as "unknowable" or "omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, but undetectable" as God generally is, then you define him into a place that can't be seen. No matter how much anyone looks -- even if one could know everything there is to know about the universe, you'd still say there is an open question, because you can imagine a deity that exists outside of the universe.

To that extent, of course it is an open question. But it is still irrational to believe in God. He may exist, sure. But, it's irrational to believe in it.

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.

I don't know. And, I don't believe in God. Both are very rational claims.

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.

My argument has never changed. But, I know the dishonest way you debate leads you to want to state or imply otherwise.

I've asked you before, but you always evade. Why do you insist on the proper name "God" when discussing this issue? Do you hold the same position regarding Allah, Jehovah, Zeus, Thor, Odin, Ahura-Mazda, Vishnu, any other god, and gods in general? Or, does your argument just apply to "God?"

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.

I've already said that I don't know for sure whether or not God exists. I've said it many times. You are such a dishonest person in this regard.

Even Richard Dawkins has said he isn't 100% sure.

Not knowing whether or not God ACTUALLY exists does not make it unreasonably to conclude based on what we know now that it doesn't exist. I don't believe God exists. Might he exist? Sure. Do I know? No.

How many times do I need to be 100% fucking clear about this before you stop lying and claiming that I am claiming something I'm not? You and your shell game, bait-and-switch, dishonest argument style... what is weird is that you mistake Bush League tactics for talent.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

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.

"Pulls up a chair and waits for Seth to answer ..."

Let me know if he does something surprising, like answering coherently.

[surreptitious57]

Absolutely right there Coito : I have stated that I do not believe in God and that that is subtle
but nevertheless important distinction from claiming that God does not exist and yet Seth
responds as If I were suggesting proof for the latter when have clearly indicated am not

He claims God may exist and makes the analogy that Newton had zero knowledge of the sub atomic
world but that it still existed : argument is incredibly weak though factually true for Science works
by a process of trial and error where information is gathered and accumulated over time : that
has been going on since Man first existed and will carry on till he becomes extinct : in other
words an ongoing work in progress : we are not ever going to know everything all in one
moment of time : but to then extrapolate from that that God may exist just because
evidence is there when there is none that can demonstrate this is just nonsensical
Science adds to a puzzle that is already in existence while Religion presents the
entire puzzle lock stock and barrel and is why Seth s analogy is just so wrong

But let me take this idea of his to its absolute conclusion : how does he know that everything he
experiences nothing more an artificial intelligence capable of simulating thought and emotion
He has no idea : for all he knows human experience is just that : a manipulation by another
intelligence beyond the comprehension of us who really are a manifestation of that said
intelligence : one has to draw a line somewhere otherwise no matter how real or how
unreal something is it all amounts to the same thing : now Know of no one who can
have that as a mind set and still function in the world as it is and which is why
I therefore come back to the Scientific Method for being the best reference
point for what is real or unreal : and fully accept that is less than perfect
as have already stated but still the best indicator of reality we possess

Now Seth has a habit of arguing for the sake of it and even where what he is advocating
is completely contrary to his own beliefs so maybe we should take what he posts with
a large bucket of salt : he may think that it is intellectually challenging and on that
I would agree but given how he may not actually believe it it can also be morally
dishonest : he should be referencing what he really thinks not just what is a
good debate : and so should speak from his heart as well as from his head

[surreptitious57]

been a tough slog to get anyone to admit that they can t prove that God doesn t exist

You have been repeatedly told by myself and others that no one can prove
that God does not exist yet still continue to present this fallacious argument
You are doing nothing more than playing devil s advocate : you cannot be serious
about what you are posting as your argument lacks any logic : and you are choosing
to ignore what everyone here is stating : we are all in agreement that the existence of
God cannot be proved so please stop claiming otherwise : please adopt the position which
accurately reflects what you feel as opposed to the one which will provide the greatest line of
resistance : there will be no ad hom from me for that is not what I come to forums for : so give
an honest appraisal of where you stand and stop repeating the weak argument you have so far been
posting : you are highly intelligent so please provide a more rigorous example of it : thank you very much

[surreptitious57]

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

Wrong as theists are making the claim that God exists so the burden of proof is on them
This is a fundamental that applies to all and every claim of belief irrespective of where
ever it originates from : no theist cannot prove that God exists but I accept that they
do believe in Him though but belief and proof are not the same thing at all how ever

Equally accept that no atheoist cannot prove that God does not exist either : how
ever more atheists would accept existence of God if it could be proved with the
rigour of the Scientific Method than theists would accept the non existence of
God where the same rigour applied : atheists accept reality as it is where as
theists accept reality as they wish it to be it : this is a generalisation but it
is nevertheless true in principle : I my self accept what is true as opposed
to what I want to be true : I should also say just for the record too that I
believe in the freedom of religion and that anyone should believe what
ever they want to as long as the Golden Rule is being referenced and
no one else s freedom is being denied : should all live according to
it and irrespective of what other beliefs we may or may not have

[Seth]

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

Wrong as theists are making the claim that God exists so the burden of proof is on them
This is a fundamental that applies to all and every claim of belief irrespective of where
ever it originates from :

Really? Where exactly is this universal law that says that anyone is obligated to meet any burden of proof at all? Neither theism nor philosophy are subject to the constraints of the "scientific method" nor are they burdened with a requirement to prove anything to anyone. That, you see, is the nature of faith and indeed religion. Belief is confidence in the truth or existence of something that is not subject to immediate rigorous proofs, and belief need not be justified to a scientific standard of certainty to still exist as belief.

Moreover, while one may assert that a burden of proof lies on the person making the positive (or negative) claim, it is not theists who are claiming that God does not exist, it is Atheists. When one says "I do not believe God exists" this is an unassailable statement of belief not subject to rigorous proofs.

On the other hand, if one says "God does not exist" one is making an assertion of fact identical to, let's say, saying "water is comprised of two molecules of hydrogen and one molecule of oxygen." Making a statement of fact imposes (in the religion of science) an obligation to provide immediate rigorous proofs of the truth of that statement.

The statement "God exists" is a positive assertion that imposes (in the religion of science) a burden of proof if, and only if the assertion is to be accepted as a scientific truth. But exactly the same requirement applies to the statement "God does not exist." In the religion of science (and science is a religion), one may not shift the burden of proof away from the one making the positive statement asserting a fact merely because another person may make a different claim (God exists) that is unsupported.

no theist cannot prove that God exists but I accept that they
do believe in Him though but belief and proof are not the same thing at all how ever

Correct. But likewise no scientist can prove that God does not exist, they can only state their belief that this is so.

Equally accept that no atheoist cannot prove that God does not exist either : how
ever more atheists would accept existence of God if it could be proved with the
rigour of the Scientific Method than theists would accept the non existence of
God where the same rigour applied

Assertion of fact. Now the burden of proof is to substantiate this positive claim with critically robust scientifically-valid evidence.

: atheists accept reality as it is where as
theists accept reality as they wish it to be it: this is a generalisation but it
is nevertheless true in principle :

Not really. Atheists accept reality as they perceive it to be, which is not always the way it actually is. Theists accept that reality factually includes much more than that which we can perceive with our sensory organs.

I my self accept what is true as opposed
to what I want to be true

The problem is in determining what the truth is, which determination is biased and skewed by each individual's ability to perceive, infer and intuit based on indirect evidence. This makes "what is true" exceedingly difficult to determine with any accuracy in many cases, because we perceive only the tiniest fraction of reality, and some is intuited or inferred through indirect evidence, but the vast majority is beyond our knowledge or understanding, at least at present.

I should also say just for the record too that I
believe in the freedom of religion and that anyone should believe what
ever they want to as long as the Golden Rule is being referenced and
no one else s freedom is being denied : should all live according to
it and irrespective of what other beliefs we may or may not have

[/quote]

I'm glad to hear it.

[Coito ergo sum]

This from Seth -- "This makes "what is true" exceedingly difficult to determine with any accuracy in many cases, because we perceive only the tiniest fraction of reality, and some is intuited or inferred through indirect evidence, but the vast majority is beyond our knowledge or understanding, at least at present."

Correct, but that doesn't make all beliefs equal.

Just because we can't prove that X is not "True" doesn't mean that we ought to believe X, or that it is rational to believe X.

Yes, it is exceedingly difficult to know what it is true. That is why science is a difficult thing to do -- because it is an attempt to find out what is true, not merely guess at what is true. Things are not accepted as true until there is a reason to believe them to be true. If we don't have a reason to believe them to be true, then we ought not believe them. That would be unreasonable. Things that may be unreasonable to believe may nevertheless be true, however.

That is the distinction you're failing to appreciate, Seth. You confuse "believe" with "true," essentially, and you are not admitting that there is a difference. Perhaps you don't see the difference, I don't know.

When an atheist says they see no evidence of a god or gods, and that they see no reason to believe in one or another gods -- that is not a "truth" claim. They aren't saying they know 100% that there aren't any gods. They're saying they don't believe in gods.

It is not unreasonable to not believe in something for which one does not have evidence. In fact, it's the only reasonable position to take.

Still waiting for the evidence of god you said there was, BTW.

[Coito ergo sum]

And, this, from Seth: "Assertion of fact. Now the burden of proof is to substantiate this positive claim with critically robust scientifically-valid evidence."

I thought you said the burden of proof was not on the theist to prove by critically robust scientifically-valid evidence? Does a person who says "God exists" have that burden?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I thought you said the burden of proof was not on the theist to prove by critically robust scientifically-valid evidence? Does a person who says "God exists" have that burden?

"God exists" is fine. "Prove any god or gods exist" is not fine. Gotta love it.

[Coito ergo sum]

Another Seth gem: "Correct. But likewise no scientist can prove that God does not exist, they can only state their belief that this is so."

They can state their belief that it has not been proven that god exists. Scientists don't say that it has been proven that god does not exist. They say that it has not been proven that it does. Scientists don't prove that the Earth is not spheroid either or not flat. Why would they? They prove the affirmative claim - that the Earth is spheroid, and it is up to flat Earthers to prove that it is flat.

These statements of yours are preposterous.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

These statements of yours are preposterous.

Sum it up nicely.

[Brian Peacock]

N.B.

• Evidences are an epistemic requirement of all knowledge-claims. It is only by an examination of evidences that a claim can be elevated to the status of knowledge.
• Evidences are not necessarily required to make such a claim of course, but they are required to support the claim so that one might in turn judge whether the claim is justified and therefore warranted.
• The lack of evidences in support of a claim justifies a rational disbelief in the claim.
• Such disbelief does not require one take a position on the truth or falsity of the claim, though obviously without evidences one cannot rationally maintain that the claim is true or that belief in the truth of the claim is justified.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Now, take that, eat it, shit it out, and give it to the Thin Blue Line. He'll be happy with it then.

[Pappa]

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.

No... but the point is basically meaningless anyway for the same reason I can't say Santa doesn't exists.