Atheists, why should God provide evidence for His existence?

Varangian · **#281** by **Varangian** » Mar 28, 2010 9:55 am

rEvolutionist wrote:Given how angry Seth is in regards Liberals and Progressives, I think this is his outlet for a bit of fun. He likes to poke and see what reactions he can get...

Festeringbob · **#282** by **Festeringbob** » Mar 28, 2010 10:01 am

rEvolutionist wrote:

2. I doubt that it is genetic, given that some people believe and then stop believing, and some people don't believe and then start believing.

And genes have never been known to switch on and off I suppose....

Ok, i'll grant you that one...

what about DNA methylation?

rEvolutionist · **#283** by **rEvolutionist** » Mar 28, 2010 10:07 am

Festeringbob wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:

2. I doubt that it is genetic, given that some people believe and then stop believing, and some people don't believe and then start believing.

And genes have never been known to switch on and off I suppose....

Ok, i'll grant you that one...

what about DNA methylation?

wazzat?

byofrcs · **#284** by **byofrcs** » Mar 28, 2010 10:14 am

rEvolutionist wrote:
Festeringbob wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:

2. I doubt that it is genetic, given that some people believe and then stop believing, and some people don't believe and then start believing.

And genes have never been known to switch on and off I suppose....

Ok, i'll grant you that one...

what about DNA methylation?

wazzat?

You *must* remember DNA methylation ? No ?.

rEvolutionist · **#285** by **rEvolutionist** » Mar 28, 2010 10:16 am

byofrcs wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:
Festeringbob wrote:
rEvolutionist wrote:

And genes have never been known to switch on and off I suppose....

Ok, i'll grant you that one...

what about DNA methylation?

wazzat?

You *must* remember DNA methylation ? No ?.

I just looked it up on wiki and this is the first sentence:
DNA methylation involves the addition of a methyl group to the 5 position of the cytosine pyrimidine ring or the number 6 nitrogen of the adenine purine ring.

How could I forget....

byofrcs · **#286** by **byofrcs** » Mar 28, 2010 10:25 am

It was a joke...

http://www.google.com/search?q=DNA+methylation+memory

Sciwoman · **#287** by **Sciwoman** » Mar 28, 2010 12:44 pm

Seth wrote:
Sciwoman wrote:The thing is, god is presented as a perfect being. In the past, he was more than willing to make extravagant displays of his power. For him to change that behavior negates his perfection.

Illogical. His willingness to display his power has nothing whatever to do with his factual perfection. It falsely assumes that his perfection exists for the purposes of display and it ignores his free will.

No, it means that either the way he supposedly interacted with humanity in the past was imperfect or the way he interacts with humanity now is imperfect. When I was a believer, I was taught (in every denomination I was a part of) that the christian god is completely and utterly without imperfection and completely and utterly unchanging. If he changes anything, that means that something wasn't perfect because perfection can't change.

Moonwatcher · **#288** by **Moonwatcher** » Mar 28, 2010 5:43 pm

One of the problems with the Socratic Method is that, in the hands of an amateur or somebody that just wants to reach a foregone conclusion, it just becomes the "Make Shit Up" method as we see in this thread.

The OP of the thread, based upon all of his previous threads, clearly refers to the Christian god. One way to use the Socratic Method is to demonstrate that the opponent has rewritten his entire premise from what it was when he started (in this case a discussion of "God"). Seth has changed virtually every detail of what "God" is in any belief system. It is nothing more than Sagan's dragon, a "god" that is simple redefined every time evidence shows something about him isn't true. He just retreats further into the gaps. He no longer does anything measurable and even his past feats are suddenly allegories but only after evidence shows they never happened. Then when he retreats so far that what is left in neither provable or disprovable anymore, and anyone admits that, here come the philosophists and apologists proclaiming you've admitted "God" could be real therefore obviously that means the Christian god in all his mythical feats and actions is true. :roll:

Also, there is a certain political correctness here. Please, anyone who really, genuinely, seriously thinks that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real, say so, even if you hold there is a 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance. Most likely, you think the chances of the FSM being real are zero- absolute zero. Same for the Invisible Pink Unicorn. Same for Vishnu (unless you grew up being indoctrinated into Hinduism). Same for Zeus (unless you are old enough that you grew up in Classical Greece). Same for Yahweh/ Jesus/ Trinity (unless Mom and Dad and the society kept telling you it was true). This is because they all have the same amount of evidence supporting them (none). I can't say they have the same amount against them. The FSM only revealed his existence a few years ago so there's not as much time to study the evidence and see if there is any evidence for the things he claims to have done. :lol:

Some of these dieties have had thousands of years and many, many proclaimed feats with evidence that should have been there and it isn't. (No Seth, not the Resurrection. Worldwide floods that leave no evidence geologically or in terms of entire cultures of people all over the world vanishing).

Sure, on a purely mathematical level, there is a chance one or more of these is true. The problem is it is roughly an equal chance. As Bertrand Russell once put it, there's not a zero chance of anything (mathematically). Yahweh could exist. Its exactly as likely as it is that the Olympian 12 are sitting up there on their mountain.

I will say again, the thread states, "Why should God provide evidence of his existence?" "Why should he?" is an irrelevant question because the OP clearly means the biblical god and according to that text, he provided evidence again and again and again, some of which should still be detectable through a variety of methods ranging from geology to a complete end to all historical records everywhere in the world at the same time to huge migrations of people spreading out from one place on Earth, etc., etc., etc., etc. A better question would be, "Since 'God' provided all sorts of evidence, why isn't it there? Why is there a mountain of evidence that numerous things happened in ways that do not even resemble biblical claims? And why, in order to answer such questions, do theists have to fall back on spacious apologetics, circular philosophical semantics and, in sum, making shit up in a fit of mental gymnastics to evade the lack of evidence?""

Onyx8 · **#289** by **Onyx8** » Mar 28, 2010 6:19 pm

Not sure I'm in the right thread and navel gazing isn't really my thing, but it occurs to me that if the proposed god is omniscient then not only do his/its creations have no free will, but neither does he/it. If he/it already knows what he/it is going to do then he/it cannot alter that--no free will.

Madmaili · **#290** by **Madmaili** » Mar 28, 2010 9:02 pm

Seth wrote:Right. He described a sect of atheism and provided a description of the associated behavior. I suppose he could have provided quotes, but it's such an obvious truth one can easily find the proofs if one is interested in doing so.

You might not be bothered in finding proofs of his claims but he ceratinly ought to.

Seth wrote: You misconstrue. Using the theist argument that God is immaterial and undetectABLE as a bolster to an argument that God does not exist because he is "supernatural" by virtue of being (it is claimed) undetectABLE is tautology. God may merely be undetectED, It may be that the theistic explanation of the nature of God is merely erroneous in it's "immaterial and undetectaBLE" claim, and that God is not immaterial and is detectable, but, for example, is merely not present when non-believers (or believers for that matter) are equipped and prepared to document such events. And, it is also possible that God is detectable and not immaterial, or immaterial and detectable, but not with our existing detection equipment and/or knowledge. That's why "as-yet undetected entity" is the only rational claim.

Nonetheless you still see the problem here, if god is a yet undeceted entity then how can people resonably claim to beleive in that which they already admit they cannot detect? I have no interest in theological obfuscations of the word detectable, what I am saying is that religous people etheir believe what they do based on evidence or they do not and if it is evidence they should be able to present it and if their belief is just an irrtaional emotional refelxtion of the dominant culture of their upbringing they should own up to it.

Seth wrote: True. Such claims, absent evidence, are merely claims. But that does not support a rational conclusion that God does not in fact exist and did not in fact reveal himself to those individuals. If God wishes to choose whom to reveal himself to, and under what circumstances to do so (such as only in the absence of recording media or equipment that might quantify or explain the phenomenon) then it is within his power (being a God) to do so. This reluctance to be the subject of scientific examination in no way supports a claim that he does not exist, any more than Charlize Theron's reluctance to get naked in my bedroom supports a claim that she does not exist. This is simple logic.

No it is not because you already have emprical evidence to support the exitence of Charlize Theron, you variables are specious. furthermore you are again ignoring the burden of proof in the matter. If i claimed that Charlize Theron existed and you wished to contest that claim you would ask for my evidence on the subject and I would be obliged to present it. the null hypothesis until I do is that she infact does not exist , although marshalling the evidence would be really easy to quote you if I were bothered to do so. If I claimed that Charlize Theron got naked in my bedroom I would also have to prove that , same as people who claim that the creator of the univerise showed himself to them have to prove it or else I dismiss it as etheir a deliberate lie or a misunderstood illusion.

Seth wrote:But they spend a lot of time denying God's existence based on nothing more than fallacious rationalizations drawn from an acute lack of evidence that God does not exist.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence , if you beleive in god despite the lack fo evidence your being irraitional unless you also happen to beleive every other unevidence claim that people wish to level your way.

Seth wrote:Only if one wishes to prove the claim. Then again, when an atheist makes the claim that God does not exist, the burden of proof is upon the atheist to prove that claim.

No because that claim is a negative and it is almost impossible to prove a negative. I do not have to have evidence that disproves wendigos to say there are no big wendigos , all the evidence presented for their existence fails to convince me. Untill someone presents me with good evidence that indicates they do exist I will maintian that there are no Wendigos, now the question si do you beleive in Wendigos?

Seth wrote: You're making the fallacious assumption that there is a "burden of proof" anywhere in this exercise. This presumption is based on the fallacious notion that theists are obligated to prove the existence of their God to your satisfaction, using evidence and proofs you find acceptable. This is not the case. In fact, theists are under no obligation to prove anything to anyone. They have beliefs, and they are entitled to hold them.Those beliefs may be based on delusion, or they may be based on personal experience, or on something else. In any case, no obligation exists for them to explain or prove their beliefs, except in the minds of atheists who wish to impeach those beliefs.
But the OP doesn't ask theists to prove their claims, it asks why God should provide evidence for His existence to atheists?
In other words, what is God's obligation to atheists?

Everyone has an obligation to present and defened their beliefs , or when disinclined to simply state that their beleifs are subjective and apply to themselves only. Theists claiming to know "truths" are obligated to rationally and logically explain these "truths" to the rest of us. Nice try by the way but these are not my standards they are the exact same standards of evidence that a theist would expect anyone making any claim to display. I doubt very much that If i walked up to you and said your partner (or your accountant for that matter) is cheating you that you would say that it's my personal beleif and that I have no obligation to defend it. You and most people would demand that I etheir shut up or prove what I'm saying. I'm making the same demand of theists. This category of personal belief that one does not have to defend exists only for religion and I think it's a case of special pleading.

Seth wrote: Yes, you could, but you didn't, and the OP did, and you chose to respond to the OP. Since the OP IS the question, it cannot be begging it. It's merely a philosophical exercise in stepping outside one's preconceptions and dogmas. One can ask a philosophical question of this sort without begging the question, but it does require intellectual and philosophical flexibility and superior skills of reasoning to abandon one's prejudices to argue a philosophical point within the context of the question.

That is a really far distance to circle to a personal insult , but it's Ok seth I anit mad , after all it's only your personal opinion that you have no obligation to defened.

Seth wrote:See, there's that fallacy of drawing conclusions based on a lack of evidence, rather than on evidence again. You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that God does not exist, therefore your conclusion that he does not is merely a belief, not much of a rational argument.

Does Wendigo exist? should I take locking my cabin doors more seriously lest I be assualted by the native american answer to zombies?

Nebogipfel · **#291** by **Nebogipfel** » Mar 28, 2010 10:01 pm

Seth wrote:Only if one wishes to prove the claim. Then again, when an atheist makes the claim that God does not exist, the burden of proof is upon the atheist to prove that claim.

Do you see the difference between claiming that God does not exist, and withholding belief in a particular claims about God in which have little if any robust evidence to support them? I think this point may have been raised once or twice hereabouts, and in "that other place"...

Seth · **#292** by **Seth** » Mar 28, 2010 11:04 pm

Nebogipfel wrote:
Seth wrote:Only if one wishes to prove the claim. Then again, when an atheist makes the claim that God does not exist, the burden of proof is upon the atheist to prove that claim.

Do you see the difference between claiming that God does not exist, and withholding belief in a particular claims about God in which have little if any robust evidence to support them? I think this point may have been raised once or twice hereabouts, and in "that other place"...

Yes, there is a difference, but that does not change the argument or my point.

chairman bill · **#293** by **chairman bill** » Mar 28, 2010 11:19 pm

So Seth, does the god Odin exist?

rEvolutionist · **#294** by **rEvolutionist** » Mar 28, 2010 11:21 pm

chairman bill wrote:So Seth, does the god Odin exist?

Exactly. He exists until Seth proves that he doesn't exist.

Madmaili · **#295** by **Madmaili** » Mar 28, 2010 11:23 pm

Why should Odin prove he exists to you, the fact that odin makes no attempt to offer evidence of his own existence is no more evidence of his non existence than the fact that bill maher disinclination to respond to my hate mail proves he doesn't exist.

Autumn Clouds · **#296** by **Autumn Clouds** » Mar 28, 2010 11:28 pm

But god does provide evidence for his existance, it's totally justified with the miracle of circular logic!. Hmm or the devil made that one as well?.

Madmaili · **#297** by **Madmaili** » Mar 28, 2010 11:30 pm

Wasn't he busy planting fossils ?

Autumn Clouds · **#298** by **Autumn Clouds** » Mar 28, 2010 11:31 pm

O true, forgot about that one, wonder if he wanted to grow dino plants.

chairman bill · **#299** by **chairman bill** » Mar 28, 2010 11:32 pm

Er, try reading the post, Madmaili. Seth says atheists denying the existence of god should provide proof of that non-existence. So I asked Seth whether Odin exists. Nobody asked Odin to prove whether he exists or not, I asked Seth. Now, according to Seth's logic, if he denies the existence of the god Odin, he should provide evidence for that non-existence. As we know, that's bollox, but Seth doensn't appear to have learned that lesson yet.

Seth · **#300** by **Seth** » Mar 28, 2010 11:33 pm

Madmaili wrote:

Seth wrote: You misconstrue. Using the theist argument that God is immaterial and undetectABLE as a bolster to an argument that God does not exist because he is "supernatural" by virtue of being (it is claimed) undetectABLE is tautology. God may merely be undetectED, It may be that the theistic explanation of the nature of God is merely erroneous in it's "immaterial and undetectaBLE" claim, and that God is not immaterial and is detectable, but, for example, is merely not present when non-believers (or believers for that matter) are equipped and prepared to document such events. And, it is also possible that God is detectable and not immaterial, or immaterial and detectable, but not with our existing detection equipment and/or knowledge. That's why "as-yet undetected entity" is the only rational claim.

Nonetheless you still see the problem here, if god is a yet undeceted entity then how can people resonably claim to beleive in that which they already admit they cannot detect? I have no interest in theological obfuscations of the word detectable, what I am saying is that religous people etheir believe what they do based on evidence or they do not and if it is evidence they should be able to present it and if their belief is just an irrtaional emotional refelxtion of the dominant culture of their upbringing they should own up to it.

Well, I should perhaps have said "undetected by science" to clarify. Religionists will tell you that they detect God all the time.

Seth wrote: True. Such claims, absent evidence, are merely claims. But that does not support a rational conclusion that God does not in fact exist and did not in fact reveal himself to those individuals. If God wishes to choose whom to reveal himself to, and under what circumstances to do so (such as only in the absence of recording media or equipment that might quantify or explain the phenomenon) then it is within his power (being a God) to do so. This reluctance to be the subject of scientific examination in no way supports a claim that he does not exist, any more than Charlize Theron's reluctance to get naked in my bedroom supports a claim that she does not exist. This is simple logic.

No it is not because you already have emprical evidence to support the exitence of Charlize Theron, you variables are specious.

And religionists claim that they have empirical evidence to support the existence of God. The only evidence that I have to support the existence of Charlize Theron are photographs and anecdotal claims. She could be non-existent and in fact be a creation of CGI and a massive conspiracy to drive me wild with passion while keeping me from consummating it, because I have never personally met or seen her. Now, the empirical evidence is pretty compelling that she does actually exist, but that goes to the probative value of the evidence, not the existence of it. If you ask religionists about the empirical existence of God, you'll get reams of evidence, including personal encounters with Jesus and Mary. Now, this empirical evidence may not be sufficient for you, but it's sufficient for them, and since you have no way of disproving their claims, you can only form a belief about the truth value of their claims that says nothing about the actual veracity of their claims or the existence (or non existence) of God.

furthermore you are again ignoring the burden of proof in the matter. If i claimed that Charlize Theron existed and you wished to contest that claim you would ask for my evidence on the subject and I would be obliged to present it.

What if I claimed that Charlize Theron HAD appeared in my bedroom and had hot, wild sex with me all night long, but she was unwilling to confirm my claim to you when asked? Is this evidence that she did not, or is it merely evidence that she declines to provide proofs?

the null hypothesis until I do is that she infact does not exist , although marshalling the evidence would be really easy to quote you if I were bothered to do so.

What the null hypothesis would be depends on my assessment of the truth value of your claims, and therefore depends on what belief I form about your Theron claims.

If I claimed that Charlize Theron got naked in my bedroom I would also have to prove that

Why? And, as I pointed out above, what if proof could only be obtained from Charlize herself, and she declines to answer the question or is unavailable for comment? Does this provide evidence or proof of any kind whatsoever? No, of course it doesn't. It just leaves me wondering about your claims but entirely unable to prove or disprove them, which results in my making a judgment about the likelihood of the claims being true and assigning a confidence to that proposition, which is a belief.

same as people who claim that the creator of the univerise showed himself to them have to prove it or else I dismiss it as etheir a deliberate lie or a misunderstood illusion.

The point is that your dismissal, while rationally reasonable based on the lack of evidence, provides absolutely no evidence or proof towards either proving or falsifying the claims. It's just your belief, nothing more.

Seth wrote:But they spend a lot of time denying God's existence based on nothing more than fallacious rationalizations drawn from an acute lack of evidence that God does not exist.

Absence of evidence is evidence of absence , if you beleive in god despite the lack fo evidence your being irraitional unless you also happen to beleive every other unevidence claim that people wish to level your way.

Problem is, religionists will tell you that they have lots of evidence. That it is not determined by you to be credible or well-supported does not prove anything about the claims themselves, because many of them are claims of one-off phenomena that if missed, cannot be analyzed for scientific purposes any more than Charlize Theron's refusal to admit that she and I had wild sex last night is not proof that we did not.

Seth wrote:Only if one wishes to prove the claim. Then again, when an atheist makes the claim that God does not exist, the burden of proof is upon the atheist to prove that claim.

No because that claim is a negative and it is almost impossible to prove a negative. I do not have to have evidence that disproves wendigos to say there are no big wendigos

Sure you do. By claiming that wendigos do not exist, you create a burden of proof for your allegations just as you would by claiming they do exist. It is the claim that creates the burden of proof, not the validity or nature of the claim. If you claim that I did not have sex with Charlize Theron last night, it is up to you to prove that allegation.

, all the evidence presented for their existence fails to convince me. Untill someone presents me with good evidence that indicates they do exist I will maintian that there are no Wendigos, now the question si do you beleive in

Right, but your belief about the non-existence of Wendigos provides absolutely no objective information about the existence or non-existence of Wendigos.

Seth wrote: You're making the fallacious assumption that there is a "burden of proof" anywhere in this exercise. This presumption is based on the fallacious notion that theists are obligated to prove the existence of their God to your satisfaction, using evidence and proofs you find acceptable. This is not the case. In fact, theists are under no obligation to prove anything to anyone. They have beliefs, and they are entitled to hold them.Those beliefs may be based on delusion, or they may be based on personal experience, or on something else. In any case, no obligation exists for them to explain or prove their beliefs, except in the minds of atheists who wish to impeach those beliefs.
But the OP doesn't ask theists to prove their claims, it asks why God should provide evidence for His existence to atheists?
In other words, what is God's obligation to atheists?

Everyone has an obligation to present and defened their beliefs

Do they? Where is this obligation stated?

, or when disinclined to simply state that their beleifs are subjective and apply to themselves only.

And where is this rule posted, pray tell?

Theists claiming to know "truths" are obligated to rationally and logically explain these "truths" to the rest of us.

Why? By whom are they obligated. By what principle of philosophy even are they obligated to "rationally and logically" explain anything to anyone, ever?

I doubt very much that If i walked up to you and said your partner (or your accountant for that matter) is cheating you that you would say that it's my personal beleif and that I have no obligation to defend it.

Well, what I would do is rationally assess your claim and determine whether it is credible and whether there is any likelihood that you know anything about my business partner or accountant, and whether the claims you are making are of importance, and then I would assign a degree of confidence to your proposition, and I would act based on that decision. Whether or not I would demand that you back up your claims depends entirely on the importance of your claims to me. If I deemed them frivolous or unimportant, I would simply reject them and think no more of them.

You and most people would demand that I etheir shut up or prove what I'm saying. I'm making the same demand of theists.

And what leads you to the conclusion that they, much less God, are required to comply with your demands?

This category of personal belief that one does not have to defend exists only for religion and I think it's a case of special pleading.

Actually, it exists for every category of personal belief. No one is under any obligation to justify their personal beliefs about anything to anyone else, no matter how much others may demand it.

Seth wrote: Yes, you could, but you didn't, and the OP did, and you chose to respond to the OP. Since the OP IS the question, it cannot be begging it. It's merely a philosophical exercise in stepping outside one's preconceptions and dogmas. One can ask a philosophical question of this sort without begging the question, but it does require intellectual and philosophical flexibility and superior skills of reasoning to abandon one's prejudices to argue a philosophical point within the context of the question.

That is a really far distance to circle to a personal insult , but it's Ok seth I anit mad , after all it's only your personal opinion that you have no obligation to defened.

It's not personal, it's merely an observation of the requirements for critical and rational debate.

Seth wrote:See, there's that fallacy of drawing conclusions based on a lack of evidence, rather than on evidence again. You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that God does not exist, therefore your conclusion that he does not is merely a belief, not much of a rational argument.

Does Wendigo exist? should I take locking my cabin doors more seriously lest I be assualted by the native american answer to zombies?

What degree of confidence do you place in the proposition that Wendigos exists? That'll determine your rational course of action.

Atheists, why should God provide evidence for His existence?

Re: Atheists, why should God provide evidence for His existe

Re: Atheists, why should God provide evidence for His existe

Re: Atheists, why should God provide evidence for His existe

Re: Atheists, why should God provide evidence for His existe

Re: Atheists, why should God provide evidence for His existe

Re: Atheists, why should God provide evidence for His existe

Re: Atheists, why should God provide evidence for His existe

Re: Atheists, why should God provide evidence for His existe

Re: Atheists, why should God provide evidence for His existe

Re: Atheists, why should God provide evidence for His existe

Re: Atheists, why should God provide evidence for His existe

Re: Atheists, why should God provide evidence for His existe

Re: Atheists, why should God provide evidence for His existe

Re: Atheists, why should God provide evidence for His existe

Re: Atheists, why should God provide evidence for His existe

Re: Atheists, why should God provide evidence for His existe

Re: Atheists, why should God provide evidence for His existe

Re: Atheists, why should God provide evidence for His existe

Re: Atheists, why should God provide evidence for His existe

Re: Atheists, why should God provide evidence for His existe

Who is online