Fine tuned universe

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Prove your god or gods exist. Until then you got nothing.

[Seth]

Prove your god or gods exist. Until then you got nothing.

Sez you. But then again what do you know about it? Nothing.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

That makes us even.

[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.

Equal to what?

Err... equal to each other.... I take it you can puzzle out what is meant by "All men are created equal..." even though there is no designation of what they are equal to. Obviously, it means "to each other."

Beliefs are confidence in the truth or existence of something that is not subject to immediate rigorous proofs.

No. That is not the definition of belief. It's not required that a belief not be subject to immediate rigorous proofs. I believe it is sunny outside today. I can subject that to immediate rigorous proofs by walking outside and looking.

Therefore they are all equally vague in that no belief is "better" or "worse" than another.

Your definition is wrong, though, so they're not. Beliefs are not necessarily "not subject to immediate rigorous proofs." Belief in your God is one of those weak beliefs that are not subject to immediate rigorous proofs, because you define your God as being not subject to said proofs. Belief in other things, like the condition of the weather, the existence of the planet Mars, etc. are quite amenable to proof and therefore much justifiable beliefs.

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.

Why not?

Because if one has no reason/evidence to believe X, it is ipso facto unreasonable to believe X. It is not rational to believe things which are not reasonable to believe. I would think that would be something you could come to grips with and stop reasking "why", since I've told you many many times now.

The fact that we can't prove X NOT to be true, is not evidence of its truth. So, unless we have reason/evidence to believe X to be true, then it is, as noted, necessarily unreasonable/irrational to believe X is true.

Got it yet?

If you can't prove it's not true, then the value of one belief is exactly as good or bad as that of another.

Not logical at all. If you can't prove X to be false, that is not evidence of its truth. There is plenty more reason to believe things for which there is reason/evidence to believe they are true. Example, I can't prove that M doesn't exist. But, I do have evidence that N exists. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that N exists, but it certainly is not the case that "the value of belief M is as as good or bad as N."

The best you can say is that the value of one belief for which there is no evidence or reason to believe it is as good as any other belief for which there is no evidence or reason. So, yes, a belief in God is as valuable as a belief in Allah or Satan or Mother Nature. Sure. Those are equally baseless. But, they are not equal to belief in gravitational theory, or the existence of quarks, because there is evidence for those things.

That you don't think it's rational to believe in God doesn't mean that it's irrational to believe in God in part because your actual knowledge of that which is true, or of the evidence supporting the existence of God does not necessarily reflect the totality of the knowledge or evidence available about God.

I never said that anything I think enters into it. It's irrational for you to believe in god if you have no reason/evidence to believe in god. Since you have no reason/evidence to believe in god, it's unreasonable/irrational for you to believe in it.

It may not be rational for YOU to believe in God, based on your level of knowledge and experience, but that is not a universal experience and clearly other people have had different experiences and knowledge that gives them a rational belief in God.

Someone may well claim to have reason/evidence to believe in god. That doesn't make their claim valid.

I certainly can't say that some people might not have encountered evidence. Mayhap they did.

It is irrational for any person to believe in God, however, if that person does not have reason/evidence to belief in that God. There are 7 billionish people in the world. Each person must assess whether they have any such reason/evidence. If they have critically robust, scientifically valid evidence, then they would be justified in believing it. Even if that person is the only person in the world with that critically robust, scientifically valid evidence.

However, I haven't seen that critically robust, scientifically valid evidence. And, you've not pointed it out.

That's all I can do.

Therefore, I don't believe in gods, pending further information on the subject.

You are not the only sane person on the planet, nor are Atheists the only sane people on the planet.

I never said I was, nor did I say believers were insane. They're wrong, IMO, and IMO they are engaged in wishful thinking, and most of them believe without proof or reason -- that's called "faith" and is considered by most believers to be a virtue. That means, however, that they believe without needing evidence.

There may, I grant you, be one sane person who existed in the entire history of mankind, and that person may have been given the secret, which was denied me and everyone else. It's possible. You can't prove it wrong. Therefore, I assume you think you must credit that which as much validity as a belief in God.

It's just that Atheists don't have the wealth or depth of experience with God that theists do, and therefore their belief is based on less evidence and less experience and therefore the claim that God does not exist is based in their ignorance, not in some supposed intellectual superiority.

On what do you base this assertion? You don't know that theists have any experience with God, do you? If you do, how do you know this? At best you can tell us what people who claim to be theists say they have experience with. Other than that, you're clueless. You also don't know if their wealth and depth of experience is with a non-God imposter, or with a hallucination.

You can't prove any of that is not true. Therefore, by your logic, it is just as rational to claim a theist is hallucinating than anything else. Ergo, under your own argument, there is nothing irrational about calling a theist deluded or a hallucinating. Yes? If not, why not?

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.

What you don't have a reason to believe in is not a universal attribute, it's a manifestation of your ignorance, willful or otherwise, that evidently is not present in the vast majority of human beings on this planet. Does that make you the rational one or the delusional one? There are none so blind as those who will not see, goes the saying.

It may be, but is not necessarily a manifestation of ignorance. However, the same can be said for a belief that the Steady State Universe theory is not true. Maybe scientists are just willfully ignorance of the truth. Does that make the Steady State Universe theory a reasonable theory to believe in? Of course not. That would be ludicrous. Apply that by analogy to your God theory.

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.

Not at all. What I'm telling you is that the beliefs of science as regards the existence of God are precisely equal to the beliefs of theism as regards the existence of God.

If we take that as true, then the beliefs of theists regarding the existence of God are irrational, since you have claimed that a belief by a scientist that there is no God is likewise irrational.

The belief that God does not exist is exactly the same as the belief that God does exist because both are based on zero evidence of each respective proposition's truth.

The difference is that the belief that something does not exist can never be supported by any evidence. The belief that something does exist can. To avoid the nonsensical position of having to credit the belief in anything and everything that a person can imagine or dream, we ought only believe in that subset of things claimed to exist for which we have some critically robust scientifically valid reason to believe. Absent that, we ought not believe in things. Things that have no critically robust, scientifically valid evidence may well exist. We can't prove they don't. But, it remains unreasonable to believe they exist, until there is that critically robust, scientifically valid evidence.

That is, by the way, the standard you demand of atheists to prove that god does not exist. I demand it of theists to prove that God does exist. Am I not justified in doing that? Or, do theists get to dream up evidence, but atheists have to present critically robust, scientifically valid evidence?

You admit just above that unreasonable things may nevertheless be true, but the fact is that the "unreasonableness" you proclaim for belief in God is precisely the same as the unreasonableness of believing God does not exist.

It's not unreasonable to believe that X does not exist when there is no critically robust, scientifically valid evidence to believe that X does exist. It would be unreasonable to believe that X does exist when there is no critically robust, scientifically valid evidence to believe that X does exist. Thus, the only rational position is nonbelief, pending further information that changes the analysis.

Science is simply not in a position to render judgment or state truths about the existence or non-existence of God because science does not have the tools, knowledge or understanding of the question to be able to subject it to rigorous immediate proofs.

That depends on how you define your God. Some gods are rather mundane, and have or had or were claimed to have residences on Earth, like the Greek gods and the ancient Japanese gods. You'll have to provide the parameters of your God first, then I can know if there are any proofs available. If your God thingy is something that you claim exists outside of the universe and thus not subject to inquiry, then well, you're defining your proposed god out of all proof. That's playing semantics to create an unfalsifiable god. Unless you have some proof or reason -- critically robust, scientifically valid - that such a deity exists, it would be unreasonable for you to believe in it in the first place. Defining it as beyond such proofs does not improve your position.

[Coito ergo sum]

Prove your god or gods exist. Until then you got nothing.

Sez you. But then again what do you know about it? Nothing.

Knowing nothing about it is a very good reason not to believe it.

For example, if someone tells you "the Earth's climate is warming, and I am sure of it - we are all doomed due to global warming." It would not be reasonable for you to believe that person until such time as you were presented with critically robust, scientifically valid evidence. If after you have made due enquiry, and given the proponents of that position every opportunity to present you with said evidence, if they were unable to support their position, and if the claimed evidence you saw turned out to be worthless, then you would not be unjustified in concluding that there isn't any evidence for the warming climate.

You may well be ignorant, but if the verifiable, critically robust evidence isn't available to you, you would not be reasonable to "just believe it," because you couldn't prove it wrong.

It would be ridiculous for global warming proponents to say "You can't prove my belief in Global Warming wrong, therefore it is as good as any other belief." Right? Or...perhaps you do think that. Do you think that proponents of Global Warming have met their burden by telling you that you can't prove them wrong? Do they even have a burden to prove their position?

[Coito ergo sum]

"But you cannot rationally or logically say, according to your own scientific ethos and rules, that "God does not exist."

Until you prove a god or gods DOES exist, they don't. Get over it.

So, until CERN proves that the Higgs Boson exists, it does not exist?

You keep fucking missing this. It's like talking to a four year old.

NO -- fuck no -- The Higgs Boson either exists or it doesn't, irrespective of whether humans know about it. However, it would be irrational to conclude that it exists without reason or evidence, critically robust and scientifically valid, that it does exist. The Higgs Boson particle was predicted by theoretical physics - in other words, it was necessary based on the mathematics. However, nobody "believes" it exists until there is critically robust scientifically valid evidence for its existence.

But how then could CERN prove that the Higgs Boson exists if it doesn't exist until CERN proves it exists?

Answered. Its existence does not depend on belief. I don't disbelieve in God because he doesn't exist, I disbelieve in God because there is no critically robust, scientifically valid evidence of which I am aware that God exists. If you have some, let me know. My knowledge is always, on all things, provisional. I'm willing to entertain evidence that the Earth is flat and the Moon is made of green cheese, too. Fire away.

Quite a conundrum you've set for science there.

No conundrum at all. It's just your ignorance of science. Must be a deficiency in your education. I recommend you read a basic science textbook, preferably a high school or first year college physics book. You might have clue then.

Presumably, using your rather buffoon-like argument,

You spew the nonsensical gibberish you puke up here every day, and deign to call his arguments "buffoon-like?" That is rich.

until somebody discovered electrons, or quarks, they did not exist,

They did. But, there was no reason to believe in them until there was reason to believe in them. Same with the God Particle, and God.

but came into being when they were proven to exist by virtue of that scientific investigation.

Nobody says that, besides you.

Which leads one to wonder how the universe actually managed to get along for 15 billion years without electrons...

Just fine. It might still be getting along without electrons, if the science is wrong, which one must leave open the possibility for. Electrons may well not exist, for all we know. We do have good evidence that they do exist, though. So, it's reasonable to believe they exist, as with anything else, pending further evidence.

I think you ought to stick to worshiping the thin blue line, because you're just embarrassing yourself all the more when you try to participate in a debate that's above your pay grade.

This is above your IQ level, which is more appropriate than pay grade. You plainly can't think straight.

[Animavore]

Just fine. It might still be getting along without electrons, if the science is wrong, which one must leave open the possibility for. Electrons may well not exist, for all we know. We do have good evidence that they do exist, though. So, it's reasonable to believe they exist, as with anything else, pending further evidence.

Electrons have been observed.

http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=46348

[Coito ergo sum]

Just fine. It might still be getting along without electrons, if the science is wrong, which one must leave open the possibility for. Electrons may well not exist, for all we know. We do have good evidence that they do exist, though. So, it's reasonable to believe they exist, as with anything else, pending further evidence.

Electrons have been observed.

http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=46348

You missed my point entirely.

[Seth]

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 electrons do not exist because of the lack of evidence in favor of the proposition," Said Newton.

How many times does it have to be said that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? This is particularly true when the evidence of existence is denied and ignored because it does not meet some arbitrary standard that is in fact an iteration of the fallacy of begging the question which I call the Atheist's Fallacy:

"God does not exist"
"How do you know?"
"Because there is a lack of critically robust scientific evidence of God's existence."
"Why is the evidence provided by theists of miracles and visions and personal communications with God not considered valid scientific evidence?"
"Because they are unscientific!"
"Why are they unscientific?"
"Because they make supernatural claims."
"Why are the claims supernatural?"
"Because they lie outside of known scientific facts."
"How do you know this?"
"Because theists say that God is a supernatural being."
"Have you tested their claims scientifically to see if their claims of supernaturality are valid?"
"No, of course not!"
"Why not?"
"Because they are supernatural and therefore science cannot test them."
"Are you sure? How do you know?"
"Because theists say so."
"Are the claims of theists always correct?"
"No, of course not, their claims of a supernatural Sky Daddy are nonsense."
"Why?"
"Because nothing supernatural can exist. There is only nature."
"How do you know this?"
"Because the Scientific Method says so!"
"Is the scientific method omnipotent or omniscient?"
"No, of course not, it's just a theory about the nature of the universe that says that all things are explainable by reference to natural actions and without supernatural causes."
"Is God unnatural or supernatural?"
"Yes."
"How do you know this?"
"Because theists say so."
"But you just admitted that the claims of theists are nonsense, so how can you make an accurate judgment of the nature of God by reference to claims that by your own admission are nonsense? Wouldn't a scientific determination of the existence of God need to be made without resorting to the nonsensical claims of theists, through independent scientific investigation?"
"Well, yes..."
"So, in fact you cannot make a valid claim that God does not exist based on your understanding of theistic claims because you have not done any valid scientific investigation to determine if God is indeed supernatural or is actually completely natural but beyond your scientific ability and understanding, correct?"
"Well, yes..."
"Do you intend to do any scientific investigation of the existence and nature of God?"
"Don't be silly, of course not!"
"Why not?"
"Because God is a non-existent theistic myth, so why bother to investigate something that cannot exist?"
"How do you know God cannot exist?"
"Because God is a fictional supernatural myth, dammit!"
"How do you know this?"
"Because theists say so..."

Return to the top and loop endlessly through the Atheist's Fallacy...

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.

Wrong. I have incontrovertible evidence that intelligent design of living organisms on planet earth has factually and undeniably occurred. Here it is: BT corn, by Monsanto.

It is not an irrational inference to hypothesize that an intelligence similarly designed living organisms on earth sometime in the 4.5 billion years that earth has existed without mankind being there to observe the process. That I have no present way to prove the hypothesis does not make the hypothesis unscientific or non-falsifiable. All that is required to falsify the hypothesis is to track the evolution of the DNA of every living creature that has ever existed from the beginning of life until now and demonstrate the method by which one DNA strand evolved into another DNA strand. Also, falsification of the theory of OLE (Origin of Life on Earth) could also be performed by demonstrating that it is impossible for intelligence to manipulate matter and energy, and specifically primitive inorganic chemistry, to create a living organism. The difficulty of achieving either of these falsifications is irrelevant as regards the scientific validity of the hypothesis.

Even showing experimentally exactly how inorganic chemicals could spontaneously "evolve" into a living organism would not disprove the hypothesis because natural evolution and intelligent design are not mutually exclusive phenomena, and all mixing chemicals together in a lab to eventually produce a living organism would do is provide further proof that intelligent design (OLE) is a valid scientific hypothesis.

Or, let's posit that some scientist manages to assemble the raw protein chains that make up the bacterial lancet to form a lancet device that operates, and then uses the same toolbox of protein chains to create a bacterial flagellum, all that would be proved is again that intelligence can design components of living organisms just like engineers can use 7/16ths bolts to assemble both car engines and porch swings.

The point is that you cannot discount or dismiss the OLE hypothesis by simply saying "there is no evidence." There is evidence. There is absolute proof that it's possible for humans to do so, which means than other intelligence can also do so if the conditions are right, and such an intelligence can do so at any time in the history of the universe(s) where the conditions are right.

That you disbelieve that such intelligent design occurred on earth prior to Monsanto's efforts is entirely irrelevant to the validity of the hypothesis. Is the hypothesis currently supported with critically robust scientific evidence of such ancient manipulation at the moment? No, it's not. But then again the gaps in the fossil record and the dearth of verifiable DNA continuity in species evolution in the deep past leaves plenty of opportunity for intelligent design to have occurred without science being able to detect it using the tools and knowledge available to it today.

And the intelligent design could be as simple and undetectable as merely seeding the planet with the first primitive living cells.

That we don't know if this occurred doesn't mean that it couldn't have occurred, and merely because naturalistic evolution (as if an advanced ancient intelligence is "supernatural" to begin with) is the most "parsimonious" and "satisfactory" answer to pseudo-scientist Atheists in no way disparages the potential truth of the OLE hypothesis, which is exactly as "scientific" as Darwinism.

When our knowledge of the history of life on earth is perfected, we will then have a better handle on which hypothesis (Darwinism or OLE) is the correct answer, or if both were involved. Until then the only valid conclusion that can be drawn about the OLE hypothesis is "It is possible within the realm of known science for such intelligent design to have occurred prior to our presence and ability to detect such actions, but we do not at present have any direct evidence that such intelligent design actually occurred."

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.

No, it's not "facts," it's merely your belief and opinion. Big difference. Huge. And that's what makes it "hand waving." You don't "know" because you haven't seen the evidence. This does not mean the evidence does not exist, just that you haven't seen it, haven't looked for it, or disbelieve that which you have seen.

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.

Sure I have. Fatima. Now it's up to you to prove God didn't do it.

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.

Your disbelief is not a scientific conclusion, it's a belief, and it's a reflection of your personal religious faith in Atheism, nothing more.

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."

Maybe they know something you don't because they have examined the evidence which you refuse to examine.

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.

Nonsense. Atheists say "There Are No Gods" all the time. They put it on billboards. They spout it at conferences. They say it all the time. You yourself have said it on several occasions in this forum. If Atheists always qualified their claim with "I do not believe" then I'd have nothing to throw in your face, but the truth is that Atheists are constantly making the positive assertion that God does not exist, and I take great pleasure in calling them on this bullshit assertion by holding them to their own ethical standards of proof.

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.

Wrong. Many people here say "there are no gods," and "God does not exist," including you. You're mendaciously trying to evade culpability for your own irrational religious beliefs by lying about what it is that Atheists claim.

I take this as an admission that I am correct and you are wrong, but you are unwilling to admit the simple truth that your own personal claim that there is no God is an irrational expression of religious faith.

[Svartalf]

Just fine. It might still be getting along without electrons, if the science is wrong, which one must leave open the possibility for. Electrons may well not exist, for all we know. We do have good evidence that they do exist, though. So, it's reasonable to believe they exist, as with anything else, pending further evidence.

Electrons have been observed.

http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=46348

Well, at one point one could have argued that lightning was proof for Thor (or at least for Mjöllnir)

[Seth]

Just fine. It might still be getting along without electrons, if the science is wrong, which one must leave open the possibility for. Electrons may well not exist, for all we know. We do have good evidence that they do exist, though. So, it's reasonable to believe they exist, as with anything else, pending further evidence.

Electrons have been observed.

http://www.photonics.com/Article.aspx?AID=46348

Not in 1640.

[Svartalf]

Until actual evidence crops up, the theory that there is no deity is the one that makes best sense.

Of course, at the current point, the notion that we could ever come up with scientific instrumetns able to detect the divine and to let us recognize it as such (as opposed to some kind of natural force) is pretty much unconceivable.

[Coito ergo sum]

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 electrons do not exist because of the lack of evidence in favor of the proposition," Said Newton.

Precisely. That would be rational. There was no evidence from which Newton could conclude that something called an electron existed. He would be justified in not believing in the existence of electrons, pending further evidence.

Now you have it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Get ready for a goal post move.

[Seth]

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.

Equal to what?

Err... equal to each other.... I take it you can puzzle out what is meant by "All men are created equal..." even though there is no designation of what they are equal to. Obviously, it means "to each other."

Beliefs are confidence in the truth or existence of something that is not subject to immediate rigorous proofs.

No. That is not the definition of belief. It's not required that a belief not be subject to immediate rigorous proofs. I believe it is sunny outside today. I can subject that to immediate rigorous proofs by walking outside and looking.

Wrong:

be·lief
   [bih-leef] Show IPA
noun
1.
something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2.
confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3.
confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4.
a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.
Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/belief

Until you subject your belief that it is sunny outside to immediate rigorous proof, it's just a belief. Once you do so, it's knowledge.

Therefore they are all equally vague in that no belief is "better" or "worse" than another.

Your definition is wrong, though, so they're not. Beliefs are not necessarily "not subject to immediate rigorous proofs."

It's not "my" definition, it's "the" definition according to the fine folks whose job it is to put together compendiums of definitions. Go look it up.

Belief in your God is one of those weak beliefs that are not subject to immediate rigorous proofs, because you define your God as being not subject to said proofs.

Where did I ever say that the existence of God is anything but a belief? And where did I ever say that God is mine? And where did I ever say that God is not subject to said proofs?

Belief in other things, like the condition of the weather, the existence of the planet Mars, etc. are quite amenable to proof and therefore much justifiable beliefs.

Now you're quantifying belief as "justifiable" based on how credible you find the evidence. Well, that's fine, but if you are not aware of the evidence, does it change the nature of the truth? If you are unaware of the giant crystal caves in Mexico, does this mean they do not exist? No, it means you're ignorant of the evidence. Therefore your ignorance cannot be rationally used as an argument to deny that the crystal caves, or God, do not exist.

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.

Why not?

Because if one has no reason/evidence to believe X, it is ipso facto unreasonable to believe X.

If you have no evidence of the giant crystal caves of Mexico, is it unreasonable of you to believe such caves could exist based on rational inference from other knowledge and indirect evidence you might have, such as knowledge of the propensity of gypsum-filled hot water to form crystals over time and the knowledge of sub-surface hydrothermal activity in Mexico?

The point is that just because YOU are unaware of, or are skeptical of the truth-value of the evidence that others see that proves God's existence does not make their beliefs irrational, it would only make YOUR belief irrational. Their beliefs may be rational based on their knowledge and experience.

It is not rational to believe things which are not reasonable to believe. I would think that would be something you could come to grips with and stop reasking "why", since I've told you many many times now.

The fact that we can't prove X NOT to be true, is not evidence of its truth. So, unless we have reason/evidence to believe X to be true, then it is, as noted, necessarily unreasonable/irrational to believe X is true.

I've never claimed that the inability to prove X not to be true is evidence that it is true, so that's a strawman argument. I've said that your discounting or denial of the evidence of the existence of God that other people find and accept is not the metric upon which the existence of God may be judged by anyone. Your ignorance of the evidence does not disprove the existence of God, you see, if God exists. Skepticism is not the same thing as proof of absence.

Got it yet?

Got what, your irrational and obfuscatory pettifoggery and strawman arguments? Yeah, I got them just fine thanks.

If you can't prove it's not true, then the value of one belief is exactly as good or bad as that of another.

Not logical at all. If you can't prove X to be false, that is not evidence of its truth.

Unresponsive strawman and therefore non sequitur.

There is plenty more reason to believe things for which there is reason/evidence to believe they are true. Example, I can't prove that M doesn't exist. But, I do have evidence that N exists. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that N exists, but it certainly is not the case that "the value of belief M is as as good or bad as N."

All beliefs are equal. If you have evidence that N exists, and that evidence is subject to immediate rigorous proofs, it's not a belief, it's knowledge. But if you merely believe N exists and M doesn't exist, it's confidence in the truth of both propositions, neither of which are subject to immediate rigorous proofs and both beliefs are exactly of equal value.

The best you can say is that the value of one belief for which there is no evidence or reason to believe it is as good as any other belief for which there is no evidence or reason. So, yes, a belief in God is as valuable as a belief in Allah or Satan or Mother Nature. Sure. Those are equally baseless. But, they are not equal to belief in gravitational theory, or the existence of quarks, because there is evidence for those things.

Then they aren't beliefs, they are knowledge, if, and only if your confidence in their existence is subject to immediate rigorous proofs. Therefore your argument is a strawman and a red herring having nothing to do with beliefs, which are all equal because the point of belief is that it is confidence in the truth or existence of something not subject to immediate rigorous proofs.

Like the existence, or non-existence of God.

That you don't think it's rational to believe in God doesn't mean that it's irrational to believe in God in part because your actual knowledge of that which is true, or of the evidence supporting the existence of God does not necessarily reflect the totality of the knowledge or evidence available about God.

I never said that anything I think enters into it. It's irrational for you to believe in god if you have no reason/evidence to believe in god. Since you have no reason/evidence to believe in god, it's unreasonable/irrational for you to believe in it.

Indeed. But the claim under examination is not whether or not you or I believe in the existence of God, it's the claim made by you and other Atheists that "there are no gods" and "God does not exist." So, your argument is a red herring diversion attempt.

It may not be rational for YOU to believe in God, based on your level of knowledge and experience, but that is not a universal experience and clearly other people have had different experiences and knowledge that gives them a rational belief in God.

Someone may well claim to have reason/evidence to believe in god. That doesn't make their claim valid.

I certainly can't say that some people might not have encountered evidence. Mayhap they did.

Valid in what way? If they have a reason or evidence to believe in God then their claim is valid for them. That it's not valid for you is utterly irrelevant.

It is irrational for any person to believe in God, however, if that person does not have reason/evidence to belief in that God.

Yup, but then again it's just as irrational for any person to assert that God does not exist if that person does not have evidence that God does not in fact exist.

There are 7 billionish people in the world. Each person must assess whether they have any such reason/evidence. If they have critically robust, scientifically valid evidence, then they would be justified in believing it. Even if that person is the only person in the world with that critically robust, scientifically valid evidence.

That would only be true if critically robust scientifically valid evidence were the sole metric for validating and justifying a belief. Unfortunately for your argument, it's not. That's only true for those who adhere to the religion of Science. Others may have an entirely different metric that's just as valid for them.

However, I haven't seen that critically robust, scientifically valid evidence. And, you've not pointed it out.

That's all I can do.

Therefore, I don't believe in gods, pending further information on the subject.

Which is fine, but a non-responsive answer to the challenge of your statement that "Gods do not exist" posted so long ago in a galaxy far, far away.

You are not the only sane person on the planet, nor are Atheists the only sane people on the planet.

I never said I was, nor did I say believers were insane. They're wrong, IMO, and IMO they are engaged in wishful thinking, and most of them believe without proof or reason -- that's called "faith" and is considered by most believers to be a virtue. That means, however, that they believe without needing evidence.

But they have evidence. You just don't like it.

There may, I grant you, be one sane person who existed in the entire history of mankind, and that person may have been given the secret, which was denied me and everyone else. It's possible. You can't prove it wrong. Therefore, I assume you think you must credit that which as much validity as a belief in God.

I'm not crediting anything, I'm merely analyzing and criticizing your logic and reasoning skills.

It's just that Atheists don't have the wealth or depth of experience with God that theists do, and therefore their belief is based on less evidence and less experience and therefore the claim that God does not exist is based in their ignorance, not in some supposed intellectual superiority.

On what do you base this assertion? You don't know that theists have any experience with God, do you? If you do, how do you know this? At best you can tell us what people who claim to be theists say they have experience with. Other than that, you're clueless. You also don't know if their wealth and depth of experience is with a non-God imposter, or with a hallucination.

Since I've not met any hallucinatory, delusional theists, but rather they have all been rational and reasonably intelligent people, I make the assumption that belief in God does not require that one be delusional or hallucinatory. And I base my judgment of Atheists on my long experience with Atheist argumentation, which is most often as religiously zealous and irrational as the worst of evangelical radical theists.

You can't prove any of that is not true. Therefore, by your logic, it is just as rational to claim a theist is hallucinating than anything else. Ergo, under your own argument, there is nothing irrational about calling a theist deluded or a hallucinating. Yes? If not, why not?

You can call theists anything you like. I'll continue to call Atheists irrational, delusional and bigoted religious zealots for the most part.

The belief that God does not exist is exactly the same as the belief that God does exist because both are based on zero evidence of each respective proposition's truth.

The difference is that the belief that something does not exist can never be supported by any evidence.

Well said! Which makes your belief that God does not exist an irrational one. Ipse dixit, quod erat demonstrandum.

Science is simply not in a position to render judgment or state truths about the existence or non-existence of God because science does not have the tools, knowledge or understanding of the question to be able to subject it to rigorous immediate proofs.

That depends on how you define your God.

No, it doesn't. That's an iteration of the Atheists Fallacy. God, you see, (if he exists) is not constrained by human definition.