quote:

---

quote:

---

Assuming that we have defined God, and that the definition references some sort of entity whose existence is not supported by any evidence, my argument stands. We can infer that such a God does not exist if there is no evidence to support the claim of existence for this particular God.

---

That's very close to a tautology. X therefore X. It's valid but doesn't take us very far. And it is only true if the premise is true, "God is defined as some sort of entity whose existence is not supported by any evidence."

---

To make things a little clearer, this almost-tautology really has the form:

A. God is an entity for which there is no evidence.

B. All entities for which there is no evidence may be inferred not to exist.

C. Therefore, God may be inferred not to exist.

Again, the structure's valid, but true only insofar as one accepts premise A.

---
What others say about boorite!

quote:

---

To make things a little clearer, this almost-tautology really has the form:

A. God is an entity for which there is no evidence.

B. All entities for which there is no evidence may be inferred not to exist.

C. Therefore, God may be inferred not to exist.

Again, the structure's valid, but true only insofar as one accepts premise A.

---

Right, except as far as I can tell, it also holds that:

A'. A plausible explanation for the universe as we observe it that doesn't involve a "God" is an entity for which there is no evidence.

As a result, assuming both A and A', we're faced with three equally intellectually distasteful choices:

1) Believe in God based on faith alone.

2) Believe in an atheistic reality based on faith alone.

3) Be a true agnoistic, and have no idea what you believe.

Equally distasteful, but equally justifiable.

---
ken.kaufman@gmail.com

whereas your bias denies the possibility of a finite universe. luckily, science keeps all options open in the lack of evidence

exactly. "which could be anything"

oh, crikey. we don't "say" energy is the first cause, because like you accurately stated a second ago, it could be anything. we keep all viable options on the table until evidence is forthcoming. that's science

not to beat a dead horse, but everytime you say "proves" or something like "Technically, the singularity always existed" you make me cringe. they're untestable hypotheses. and shaky at that since the laws of physics break down in the time approaching the big bang

you're making the same mistake but in reverse -- making the tacit assumption that there cannot be a finite string of causes

actually my point is that it's what you are doing with your simplistic criterion of lack of evidence, and untestability. and no, i'm not a Ph.D in string theory, but i don't really have to be since my basic understanding of it was more than enough to point out your rather-obvious gaff at misunderstanding the inclusivity of the scientific method

it's a theory who's very basis, the strings, is untestable, but one that explains other scientific problems. exactly the same as the first cause theories, including a deity

First of all, dark matter DOES give off evidence, which is why scientists tend to believe it exists. There are certain unexplained gravitational effects, and the theory of dark matter seems to account for this.

---

you should probably read my whole post before you respond since i go on to explain this is exactly my point

as i stated, it's relevant because despite no direct evidence, it's existence helps explain other scientific problems, eg the gravitational effects on nearby systems

This has nothing to do with what I said. Science does make claims. One such claim is that man evolved from apes.

---

that must be why it's called the Claim of Evolution.

you can have multiple theories for the same problem. stating science "claims" something instead of theorizing it ignores this fact

If the theory has explanatory power and accounts for phenomenon while making falsifiable predictions, then the theory certainly isn't believed without "evidence".

---

and viable theories also aren't rejected without evidence

God has explanatory power as first cause. and again, the string of string theory also isn't testable

we seem to be going nowhere here since every glaring problem with your rule-it-out-a priori argument that you encounter you claim has nothing to do with your argument. or you tell me to get a Ph.D before i make the point again

not gonna work :)

i always considered that a fallacious argument since who's to say intelligent design didn't use evolution as it's designing tool. i think the dichotomy is a vestige of the christian's assault on the Claim... err.... Theory of Evolution, but it's a poor division by people who still use it

you've failed to make your case. they directly apply to your "lack of evidence" and "testability" claims. but since you have no rejoinder to that, try tackling this:

what makes an untestable theory such as the multidimensional pendulum big bang-big crunch theory anymore valid a thoery than a multidimensional deity theory. neither are testable and the only explanation either of them offer is the creation of the universe.

have at it

you need to stop attacking me personally and start addressing my points. it would be easy for me to attack you personally, since your not understanding of the inclusivity of the scientific method makes me think you have about a 4th grade understanding of it, but instead i'm trying to address your points instead of characterizing you, the person making those points. it's getting difficult however when you seem unwilling or unable to do the same

again, it's not "accept", it's not "prove", it's not "claim". it's theories and probabilities. for the record, i'm an atheist, i'm just bright enough to see past my own bias when donning the neutral mentality of the scientific method

you obviously make another poor assumption. first because like i said, i don't believe in god, so why would i be supporting evidence to believe? second the very term "believe" shows you still don't understand the probabilistic nature of the scientific method in general and postulating hypotheses in particular

teh haw. "complete crap" and "your god". you're outing yourself as emotionally biased more and more with each utterance

and again, though i doubt it hasn't sunk in it, the predictive power in the deity hypothesis is that it explains first cause and states where the universe came from. the latter is particularly important because of the fact everything in our universe comes from something. (energy cannot be created or destroyed, conservation of mass, etc) to suddenly ignore this fact when we come to the beginning of the universe is unscientific.

Again, the fact that we can't "see" them or DIRECTLY observe them doesn't mean they are believed in WITHOUT EVIDENCE. We can't directly observe evolution, either. But that doesn't mean all the things it predicted isn't evidence.

---

the only piece of evidence for their existence is that they formed a grand unified theory. they explained something that couldn't be explained, and despite its untestability, most scientists accept that it's a valid theory because of this explanation

argh. i'm hoping you realizing i'm an atheist will make you more likely to put aside emotional responses next post. maybe even get you past the "this has nothing to do with my argument" and "get a Ph.D in string theory before you make that point" style of debate

give me a prediction or a test to the other theories of first cause

You must not have understood my post then. Nonexistence CANNOT be proven with evidence.

---

if this is the basis of your entire argument, then you're on shaky ground indeed. because nonexistence CAN be proven with evidence. it's proven with evidence for a competing theory

or do you still believe in Plato's spheres and the ether?

---
what if nigger meant kite

quote:

---

1) Believe in God based on faith alone.

2) Believe in an atheistic reality based on faith alone.

3) Be a true agnoistic, and have no idea what you believe.

---

that's exactly how i see it too

sadly

---
what if nigger meant kite

Divine Inspiration by LuckyGuess 12-22-05

I need guidance, father. My son, God will show you the path I if you truly believe in him. Suddenly, a divine vision! You have to be home by eleven. Fuck you, dad! I'm a responsible adult now, and I can do anything I want! Enlightening. I'm going to join that Neo-Druid nudist colony down the road. Toodles. I'm coming with you.

Faith. It's whats for dinner.

---
the kid's getting old, the kid's getting old

Mandingo, I think you misunderstand my argument. I am not arguing for any particular cosmological hypothesis, because I have no expertise in that area. The only argument I'm making is that there is no evidence for God's existence, and one is justified in taking that lack of evidence and disbelieving in God, because a lack of evidence is exactly what we'd find if something did not exist.

My bias wasn't denying the possibility of a finite universe. I was pointing out that the cosmological argument, which entails that an "actual infinite" cannot possibly exist, does not adequately prove that an actual infinite cannot exist. Keep in mind that I am not making any claims about whether the universe has existed for an infinite duration of time or a finite duration. I am only pointing out that one potential argument against the cosmological argument is that it does not prove that an actual infinite does not exist. Rather, it proves that the concept of infinity is incoherent in certain mathematical scenarios. But that's another topic. Please note that I am not making any argument about how the universe originated--I'm only denying that the cosmological argument is valid.

It is clear to me that your argument is based on a misunderstanding of my use of the word "evidence". Theoretical physics, because we cannot directly observe the origin of the universe, is based on "indirect" evidence...on the falsifiable predictions a theory can make. This doesn't mean theoretical physics isn't based on evidence! The fact that the theories make falsifiable predictions is what makes them scientific. This is why I am asking you to show how your conjectures about God make falsifiable predictions. It isn't good enough that God can "explain" the first cause...because "magic" could explain the first cause, too. The explanation has to be specifically predicted or falsifiable to truly be considered scientific, otherwise it can't be validated!

This right here gives away your lack of understanding of "testability" and "evidence" in a scientific context. Even if the "strings themselves" cannot be directly observed, this doesn't mean that we can't have evidence of their existence. The proposed strings would cause certain predictive effects which could possibly be measured. As my example with evolution shows, even though evolution is not directly observed, and even though we can't "test" evolution in a lab because it would take millions of years, that doesn't mean evolution is not supported by evidence. It isn't just an idea someone came up with that explains all the facts. Scientific theories have to do more than explain the facts (this is why "It happens by magic" is not scientific even though this certainly would explain any fact!)--scientific theories also have to be potentially falsifiable, and they have to make testable predictions, as well as cohere with other accepted laws and theories.

Here's a quote from you in regards to dark matter that proves that your argument is based on a misunderstanding of scientific evidence:

Earlier you were implying that there was NO evidence for dark matter. Now you are qualifying that and saying there is no DIRECT evidence. That doesn't mean there is no evidence. The gravitational effects ARE the evidence. Remember, as with evolution, theories are often not proven through direct evidence and observation, but through the predictive power of a theory, and the observations we would expect to see if these things were true. In the case of dark matter, we'd expect to see gravitational pull, therefore the theory is validated by that observation.

Now this argument is about whether there is any evidence for God. You then responded by saying that scientific theories are often not based on evidence. But you are thoroughly wrong. What you meant is that they are often not based on DIRECT evidence, which I never denied. Indirect evidence, predictions, and tests all count as evidence in a scientific context.

Now, my argument isn't that there is indirect evidence for God but no direct evidence. It is that there is NO evidence for God. There is certainly no direct evidence (supernatural beings cannot be observed empirically)...and there is certainly no indirect evidence (because saying "God did it" to explain a certain observation makes no falsifiable predictions).

Thus, as you can see, theoretical physics hypotheses are NOT made in the absence of evidence. They are based on evidence, direct or indirect, and they are made to cohere with other observations. To compare these theories to conjecture about God is thus unwarranted, until you can show me how a God conjecture is supported by direct or indirect evidence. You have offered the "cosmological" argument as supposed "evidence", but I've shown that this argument does not prove God's existence, but merely that the universe has a first cause. It's not good enough, in other words, because it doesn't specifically prove God's existence. In fact, it's safer to apply the first cause to things we know already exist, so as not to needlessly invent entities without warrant. It makes more sense to say energy is the first cause, for instance, because we already know energy exists and also because we know this idea would cohere with the scientific law that energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

No, it doesn't. I've already shown how the "first cause" argument doesn't prove that God exists. I've also shown that the premises it is based upon are flawed. Finally, I've also shown that something like, say, "energy" could also be the first cause, or "magic elves" could also be the first cause. Obviously, you don't understand how "explanation" works in science if you think any of these conjectures have "explanatory power". The cosmological argument would have to specifically prove GOD in order to have any explanatory power. If it does not specifically predict anything, it is worthless, and any claim we make based on it will be pure conjecture. An argument or theory would only have good explanatory power if it made specific predictions. Evolution has great explanatory power because it specifically predicts similarity in structure, an evolutionary progression from simpler organisms to more complex, vestigial organs--and any observation to the contrary would prove it wrong. Intelligent Design has little explanatory power because it does not SPECIFICALLY predict anything. No matter what we observed, it would count as an explanation. Just as "It happened by magic" would also explain everything.

In short, the cosmological argument is bunk, based upon faulty premises, and does not specifically prove God's existence. Therefore, there is still no evidence for God's existence, direct OR indirect.

And the lack of evidence for God's existence is not the same as the lack of direct evidence for string theory and the Big Bang theory. These theories have much indirect evidence provided by their specific predictions. So, God conjectures have no direct or indirect evidence and can't be falsified (much like "it's magic" can't), but theoretical physics has indirect evidence and can potentially be falsified. The two are nothing alike. Until you can show me any evidence for God's existence, your whole argument is moot.

If you simply read a book on scientific methodology, or perhaps the philosophy of science, you would quickly understand why your argument is so flawed. Under your view of science, astrology is a valid scientific concept because it "explains" things. Saying "magical elves cause it" is also a valid scientific theory under your framework. You are completely ignoring the fact that a theory must have predictive power which would allow it to become falsified.

Also, please do not take offense if my tone seems emotional or enraged. I am not emotional or enraged. But I have a very blunt, aggressive writing style, probably because of my adaptation to my environment on the internet. "Internet selection", like natural selection, makes sure that only the "shitcocks" survive. In order to get by on any internet forum, one has to develop a thick skin and become very blunt, otherwise their lineage will die off and they will retreat to their Hardy Boys novels or whatever it is the kids are reading nowadays.

I love how this big-worded scientific debate was caused by JasonP, a boy who can't spell his own religion and has since moved from bible thumping comics to Yu-Gi-Oh comics to Jeff Foxworthy rip-off humor.
im a born agian christan.

Christian Comic 1 Part 2 by JasonP 12-16-05

she ask god to cleanse her see panel 2 Dear God My father in heaven I have sinned agianst you i know you died for my sins and i thank you please cleanse me and make me new your name i pray Amen God appears What who are you I am god God reassures her she is saved You are am i saved My child you are saved the minmute you accept me in to your heart i always will love you no matter what

Last year I was a huge believer in the religion of Ancient Greece. I'm not kidding. It started out as sort of an experimental thing, maybe even a joke, but then I started getting REALLY into it. I would pray to Athene before all my big math exams and Eros and Aphrodite when I wanted a romantic outing to go the right way. Seriously. Unfortunately, since then I started listening to scary rock and roll bands such as The Cramps and I've been led astray from the faith. Here's why the whole thing began:

To me, Greek mythology is the ultimate religious belief. It seemed so to me when I started and I still think so today. Why? Because all religions nowadays are too morality based. I'm a very religiously tolerant person, but when it comes to my personal faiths, that is not something I'd ever want to participate in. It weakens the person's free will and individuality, their ability to make their own decisions, and that's an extremely damaging thing (though it's great to have some basic rules to fall back on).

With greek myth, things are different. There are gods for peace, and gods for war. There are gods for love and beauty, and gods for hatred and evil. These are gods who represent whatever your fancy. Pray to and worship whichever one you want. It's that freedom of choice and flexibility of beliefs, not to mention morals, that make ancient greek and other polytheistic religions truly where it's at. At least, in my mind and by my value system.

---
It's grime time.

God is the fault of everything.

God created us therefore it's his fault if we do anything wrong.

---
The dictator of love and his weapon of mass destruction

For what it's worth three cents (one point each), and it's pretty much sums it up, hopefully leaving no need for me to clarify my position. Points 3 & 2 being the most important. (Apologies for the misspellings):

1) A fairly recent comic of mine which also happens to be a fair representation of my thoughts on this topic:

CC 306: Isaac laughs last (dedicated to Kaufman) by Smarmulus 12-02-05

note: this is true Isaac Asimov's widow has revealed that he died of AIDS contracted from a blood transfusion in the mid 1980s. Thus god does not exist. That doesn't follow. Asimov was an atheist. Asimov was an atheist and a humanist. He believed one should search for truth via the scientific method rather than through faith in mythology/religion. Thus, if there were a god he would have kept Asimov alive long enough to see the movie version of "I, Robot." That makes a lot more sense than Descartes' argument.

2) I really don't mind if someone is Christian, or whatever religion. It's none of my affair, and I can even respect their beliefs if they have at least studied the text they claim to believe and know WHAT they are claiming to believe.

For example you'd be surprised how many protestants I've met who don't even know the dogma of the church they belong to, or the number of catholics who have told me they don't believe in literal transubstantiation. If you don't believe that LITERALLY you can not by definition be catholic.

3) Living in the US there is a certain amount of christian propoganda that pervades a large part of my life. Someone coming on stripcreator to tell me "hey, you should check out christianity, it's really happening" is akin to someone coming on here and telling me smoking is unhealthy or that I should considering reading some plays by this obscure guy Shakespeare. I've studied it, I've heard the arguments, coming here to prosteletize is insulting ---- far more insulting than even the worst taste comics on this site.

---
"Eat a fucking cock." - attitudechicka

To boorite:

And most definitions of God are definitions that have no evidence in support of its existence. But if one defines God as "nature" or "my toaster", it obviously exists because it is supported with observational evidence. Most people do not define God as something that has already been proven with abundant evidence, though. Instead, they will define it as a creator of the universe, or some perfect being, in most cases.

But this whole argument is semantics. I'm not denying that a religious person cannot randomly redefine their God to be whatever they want. Nor am I denying that a religious person can't leave their concept of God undefined.

However, those that DO choose to define their God can be attacked, and that's the point. Those who don't define their God aren't saying anything, anyway. It is pointless to even address such people. But most people DO have a definition for their God, either as a creator of the universe, or as the omnibenevolent, perfect being implied by the ontological argument the philosophers are fond of.

When I say there is "no evidence" of God, just assume I am saying that "their explanations fail in crucial ways" and that "there are better explanations", then. It seems like this is just a semantics issue. When I say there is "no evidence" of God, this is just what I mean--that the evidence is better explained by a competing theory...From that we can deduce that it is invalid to say the evidence applies to the other theory...we can say that the other theory has no evidence on its side, because that evidence is already taken by another theory that makes more sense. For instance, "magic" and "electricity" both explain what would power my TV, but the fact that my TV turns on is not "evidence" for magic if "electricity" is a better explanation and better accounts for this observation. It can't be "evidence" for both, because only one causes my television to turn on--and it isn't magic. So really, this is just a semantics dispute. I am saying the same thing as you, but in a different manner.

From the fact that the ontological argument specifically "proves" (if it can be said to prove anything, which it doesn't) that a perfect being exists...one that has unlimited power, unlimited knowledge, unlimited benevolence, and so on. Philosophers and theologians agree to this definition in order to talk coherently about God. Many people do so because otherwise, they aren't really talking about anything.

We have to accept SOMEONE'S definition if we are to even discuss the issue, which is the point. Besides, the nature of language operates in this manner. The only reason you understand what I'm typing right now is because you have accepted what "most people" would define this arrangement of letters to mean. Besides, your point doesn't really make sense. There is no such thing as a "correct" definition, because definitions are arbitrary. Any definition could be correct.

But I'm here to discuss the topic of God, therefore, I'm going to discuss a "defined" God, otherwise I'm not discussing anything. To argue semantics just seems silly. If you want me to try to refute or prove a God, then tell me what you mean by God. I'm not claiming to be refuting the existence of the arrangement of letters "g-o-d", but to be refuting what some people take those letters to mean. Please get off the semantics! It is just silly!

We don't need to define "good" for the argument to work. The argument from evil applies to a specific God...the one defined as an omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator of the universe. "Goodness" is already defined prior to the atheist's argument from evil, because the creator is defined as "omnibenevolent". The definitions are already in place. Pointing out that the argument doesn't work if the definitions are not in place is thus irrelevant. I never said the argument WOULD work if the definitions weren't in place. The argument is in response to those theists who have a defintion of God and a definition of good and evil.

If God is defined as a being WITH those qualities, then I have shown that this conception of God does not exist. To get around the argument, of course, one can just change the definition of God to one that does not possess those qualities. But that's a silly way to win an argument, as you'd be abandoning your original claim and your original belief in an "omnibenevolent, omnipotent creator".

God is omnipotent. This means he can do ANYTHING that is logically possible (anything that is not self-contradictory). This means God should be able to achieve such a higher good without permitting evil. But you haven't given any specific example, so you will just have to take my word for it. (Here's my own example: The permission of evil makes people "appreciate life more", and that is "a higher good" than a world where there is no evil and less appreciation of life. However, it does not follow that the permission of evil is necessary for a very high appreciation of life. Therefore, God could achieve this end without resorting to permitting evil, because his omnipotence allows him to do anything that is logically possible.)

And because God is omnibenevolent, he would not permit evil for a higher good if he could achieve this higher good while still producing no evil. Therefore, this argument does not work.

Another example of an attempt to refute the problem of evil is the "free will" defense, which says men with free will created evil, not God. But that, too, is easily refuted. But I'll only show the refutation if you really want to see it. I've said enough for now.

I really need to get laid.

Any takers?

quote:

---

I really need to get laid.

Any takers?

---

I'm more of a giver, but send me your pics and we'll see what we can do.

Anyway, I just just made this. It's not related to that comment.

The Meek Shall Inherit Nothing by AccentuateNegative 12-23-05

The gay agenda is an attack on our country's Christian values, but we will fight back and win. If someone slaps you, aren't you supposed to turn the other cheek? Does everything have to be about the butt with you people?

quote:

---

To make things a little clearer, this almost-tautology really has the form:

A. God is an entity for which there is no evidence.

B. All entities for which there is no evidence may be inferred not to exist.

C. Therefore, God may be inferred not to exist.

Again, the structure's valid, but true only insofar as one accepts premise A.

---

Nah, that's not what I'm saying. Here's a better representation:

A. God is defined as a creator of the universe, or an omnibenevolent, omnipotent being. (These are the most common definitions.)

B. There is no evidence for a creator of the universe, or an omnibenevolent, omnipotent being. (If you think there is evidence, simply give it to me and I can show you why it doesn't work.)

C. All entities for which there is no evidence may be inferred not to exist.

D. Therefore, God may be inferred not to exist.

Notice that I am not "defining" God as an entity unsupported by evidence. I am using the most common definitions of God, showing that they are not supported by evidence, and then inferring the nonexistence of this SPECIFIC definition of God. Whether you can redefine God as a toaster or my cock doesn't matter. I've refuted the definition of God I wanted to refute, so I'm content. After all, I certainly didn't want to refute the existence of my cock, no matter how tiny it is.

And here's an example of why your "semantics" argument is annoying, boorite:

This doesn't follow, because you haven't defined "valid" or "true" or "accepts" or "structure".

If you respond that I can use a dictionary, I will respond with the following objections:

1. I don't think we should accept "most people's" or "the dictionary's" definition of a phenomenon as the correct one.

2. If we have not defined "true", then the statement "Again the structure's valid, but true only insofar as one accepts premise A" is meaningless, and we might as well say "Again the structure's valid, but djkaldjfkasd only insofar as one accepts premise A".

3. Furthermore, since we have not defined "valid", "structure", or "accepts", we might as well say "Again the dajkldfa's adjkfldas, but fdjaksldf only insofar as one djakfsld premise A".

4. If you have demonstrated that the argument is not "A" (referenced by the apparently undefined word "true"), then you have not demonstrated that the argument is not true, only that it does not have the quality "A".

Now you see why arguments about semantics and definitions are ridiculous and make me want to punch walls.

Kaufman said:

quote:

---

Right, except as far as I can tell, it also holds that:

A'. A plausible explanation for the universe as we observe it that doesn't involve a "God" is an entity for which there is no evidence.

As a result, assuming both A and A', we're faced with three equally intellectually distasteful choices:

1) Believe in God based on faith alone.

2) Believe in an atheistic reality based on faith alone.

3) Be a true agnoistic, and have no idea what you believe.

Equally distasteful, but equally justifiable.

---

Your conclusions do not follow. Here's why:

A' only proves that a "plausible explanation" for the origin of the universe has no evidence. Thus, "a plausible explanation" does not exist.

The fact that there is no plausible explanation for the origin of the universe does not prove that atheistic beliefs are based on faith. Rather, it would prove that a belief in an "explanation" for the origin of the universe would be based upon faith. The only essential trait of an atheist is a disbelief in God...it has nothing to do with a belief in the origin of the universe. One can believe the universe originated from a a turtle's asshole and still be an atheist.

Also, I would deny your premise A', because I wouldn't say there is a complete absence of evidence for a "plausible" explanation for the universe's existence. On the face of things, the Big Bang theory seems plausible. There is certainly an absence of evidence proving an "absolutely certain" explanation. But no one who knows the methodology of science believes that scientific theories are "absolutely certain".

and just to reiterate, i'm saying that's NOT congruent with the scientific method. in fact, it borders on being an Argument from Ignorance, which wikipedia defines as:

"The argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or argument by lack of imagination, is the assertion that if something is currently inexplicable to some people, then it did not (or could not) happen, or that if evidence of something has not been scientifically proven to their satisfaction, then it cannot exist."

that page puts it succinctly. "An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

My bias wasn't denying the possibility of a finite universe. I was pointing out that the cosmological argument, which entails that an "actual infinite" cannot possibly exist, does not adequately prove that an actual infinite cannot exist. Keep in mind that I am not making any claims about whether the universe has existed for an infinite duration of time or a finite duration.... Please note that I am not making any argument about how the universe originated--I'm only denying that the cosmological argument is valid.

---

but see that's not all you're doing. if it was, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. you're declaring an assumption a justifiable scientific position:

"The only argument I'm making is that there is no evidence for God's existence, and one is justified in taking that lack of evidence and disbelieving in God, because a lack of evidence is exactly what we'd find if something did not exist."

that is absolutely wrong. i respect your use of logic, even if we disagree, but that is just false. the scientific thing would be to say "i'm an agnostic" or "i don't know" or "that's a question science can't answer". but you're mistakenly saying that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

completely unscientific.

here's some supporting quotes. tell me if you want more because they aren't hard to find:

"We've learned that not all questions we can ask have answers we can find. Any question that is in principle or in practice untestable, is not considered a valid scientific question. We like to think we don't waste time on those, but they seem to pop up in Internet and classroom discussions quite often. Many people think unanswerable questions are the most profound and important ones. Questions like "What is the meaning of it all," "What lies outside the universe," or "What jump-started the universe?" Scientists should set these aside for the philosophers to chew on, and get on with the business of answering more accessible questions." ...

"All of these reservations and qualifications about truth, reality, and belief, don't matter - such philosophical quibbles aren't relevant to doing science. We can do science quite well without 'answering' these questions—questions that may not even have answers. Science limits itself to more finite questions for which we can arrive at practical answers." ...

"Theistic evolution holds that the acceptance of evolutionary biology is not fundamentally different from the acceptance of other sciences, such as astronomy or meteorology. The latter two are also based on a methodological assumption of philosophical naturalism to study and explain the natural world, without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural." ... (emphasis added)

"Any method of inquiry or investigation or any procedure for gaining knowledge that limits itself to natural, physical, and material approaches and explanations can be described as naturalistic.

Distinctions are sometimes made between two approaches, the first being methodological naturalism or scientific naturalism, and the second ontological naturalism or metaphysical naturalism. This distinction between approaches to the philosophy is particularly made by those involved in the creation-evolution controversy. The first approach involves only the application of the scientific method to science, which assumes that observable events in nature are explained only by natural causes without assuming the existence or non-existence of the supernatural. This approach is also known as scientific materialism or as methodological materialism. The second approach refers to the metaphysical assumption that the natural world is all that exists." ... (emphasis added) (it's not a coincidence that the method that doesn't assume one way or another about a deity is called scientific naturalism while the method that does assumes is called metaphysical naturalism.)

i don't think you understand. they worked backward to make the numbers fit, tweaking whatever they could to get the math and physics to work. whatever. they. could. when they were done, they had everything fitting, something like 11 dimensions, and a base element that it's impossible to empirically observe. but still it explains what was unexplainable and is considered a viable theory

likewise, first cause, including deity-creation, is a logical explanation. some even say testable. i'm not convinced of that, but my entire point is that it's the exact same thing as your logical explanation that God doesn't exist. neither are testable, so neither meet the standards of the scientific method, but both serve to explain something unexplainable, so neither should be ruled out as hypotheses a priori until further evidence is forthcoming. you're ruling one of them out. the scientific method says to rule out neither

there's just no getting around that fact.

falsifiable or verifiable, correct? that's why hypotheses are often reworded to be their negative. ie, if you're trying to prove that Amino ACD exists in the liver, your hypothesis might be "Amino ACD does not exist in the liver". then if you falsify your theory, you've verified your belief that Amino ACD exists in the liver

the problem is that the deity-exists theory is verifiable but not falsifiable while the no-deity-exists theory is falsifiable but not verifiable. two sides of the same coin

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Here's a quote from you in regards to dark matter that proves that your argument is based on a misunderstanding of scientific evidence:

---

as i stated, it's relevant because despite no direct evidence, it's existence helps explain other scientific problems, eg the gravitational effects on nearby systems

---

Earlier you were implying that there was NO evidence for dark matter. Now you are qualifying that and saying there is no DIRECT evidence.

---

i was saying the exact same thing both times. the first time i chose to elaborate on blackholes gravitational effects and the next time Dark Matter. i maybe should have said empirical evidence, but i thought my intent was pretty obvious when i elaborated

that was all going to the point of you thinking in a vacuum. you were considering context when you were making the leap of faith that a god doesn't exist, (there's no supporting evidence, infinite series) but then ignoring similar contextual implications when making your case against his existence (explaining first cause, conservation laws). my point was apply the same standards to both, because they're both leaps of faith

now you're getting it! :)

that's what i was saying with the big bang. you have what appears to be something coming from nothing, a concept science abhors, and you also have science breaking down in the first few milliseconds of the big bang. science breaks down, and something seems to occur that directly defies science. hmm, maybe we shouldn't constrain our hypotheses to those currently considered scientifically valid

no, my argument is that there's EQUALLY as much evidence for no god and that you should treat both as a leap of faith. everything about dark matter, blackholes, string theory were all my attempt to show you that a no deity hypothesis is as much a leap of faith as a deity hypothesis. i did this by explicity pointing out the lack of evidence/direct evidence to directly counter your statement that "one is justified in taking that lack of evidence and disbelieving in God". this is absolutely bass ackwards and unscientific

what we really need to do is "study and explain the natural world, without assuming the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural".

no crying in baseball. no assuming in science.

oh, no worries. you're an easy read as someone who gets worked up when debating. besides your error of making claims about me rather than my arguments, i find the debate fun and sensed no malice in you :)

1 h4v3n'7 b33n 1nflu3n3d by teh int3rn3t a7 a11.

omg l4m3z0r

---
what if nigger meant kite

The Lord, the Lord Jehovah has given unto you these fifteen...

(crash)

Ten! Ten Commandments for all to obey!

---
Think classy, you'll be classy.

quote:

---

Kaufman said:

quote:

---

Right, except as far as I can tell, it also holds that:

A'. A plausible explanation for the universe as we observe it that doesn't involve a "God" is an entity for which there is no evidence.

As a result, assuming both A and A', we're faced with three equally intellectually distasteful choices:

1) Believe in God based on faith alone.

2) Believe in an atheistic reality based on faith alone.

3) Be a true agnoistic, and have no idea what you believe.

Equally distasteful, but equally justifiable.

---

Your conclusions do not follow. Here's why:

A' only proves that a "plausible explanation" for the origin of the universe has no evidence. Thus, "a plausible explanation" does not exist.

The fact that there is no plausible explanation for the origin of the universe does not prove that atheistic beliefs are based on faith. Rather, it would prove that a belief in an "explanation" for the origin of the universe would be based upon faith. The only essential trait of an atheist is a disbelief in God...it has nothing to do with a belief in the origin of the universe. One can believe the universe originated from a a turtle's asshole and still be an atheist.

---

But without any convincing evidence for the lack of God, beyond the lack of evidence for the existence of God, I say atheism is equally a leap of faith, whether or not that faith is in the fart of a giant turtle.

I don't know. To me, having "nothing" exist forever untill some 15 billion years ago, and then having it suddenly kick into action for no reason and spawn a universe without any higher assistance seems a bit hard to swallow. And thus, atheism is hard to swallow. About as hard to swallow as the existence of that assistance in the first place to do what it had to.

I stand by what I said: Faced with a lack of evidence for any solid conclusion regarding the existence of God, we choose to believe what we want to believe based on faith, and can hardly be faulted for that. We can, however, be faulted for what we do in support of those beliefs.

---
ken.kaufman@gmail.com

Mandingo--

I think you have finally realized that a god conjecture is not scientific, because you have listed many quotes that show that science is only equipped to deal with natural phenomenon. It does not say whether the supernatural exists or not exists. Keep in mind that I have never argued that science "disproves" God's existence. My own argument for inferring nonexistence is a philosophical one, not a scientific one...but it is very similar to scientific methodology in my emphasis of falsification. Obviously, I am not one who believes science is the only source of knowledge--the scientific method, after all, cannot be justified through observation or testability...it is justified philosophically.

But part of this debate was whether a God-claim could be scientific. I think your own quotes thoroughly show that a God conjecture could not be scientific, first of all because it isn't a naturalistic explanation, and second of all because supernatural explanations could not be tested or falsified. They make no predictions, much as my "It's magic" examples would. This is why "It's magic" or "God makes it happen" are not scientific theories.

Now that we have that out of the way, back to the original point. My argument is that we are justified in inferring nonexistence from a lack of evidence.

You say this is not so, and say that "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" by quoting a Wikipedia article.

However, I want you to think hard about this: What WOULD be evidence of absence for a non-contradictory entity if the absence of evidence is not good enough? How COULD we say something does not exist?

I'm afraid you will not be able to answer this question. The reason is because things that do not exist cannot be absolutely proven to not exist. Things that do not exist do not give off "evidence" of their nonexistence. My argument is meant to justify the usage of the burden of proof. Look that up on Wikipedia. You should see an article that says "existential claims have to meet the burden of proof", or something similar to that. But WHY would existential claims have to meet a burden of proof? Why would that burden be on the one making a claim of existence, but not one making a claim of nonexistence? Well, it's a pragmatic reason--because existence can be verified, but nonexistence cannot. If you demand evidence for nonexistence (and not allowing the absence of evidence to count), it would be absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to say anything didn't exist. We would be unable to say centaurs, leprechauns, or fairies do not exist. I don't think this lack of certainty should lead one to conclude that we can't infer something does not exist from the lack of evidence. As I said before, a lack of evidence is EXACTLY what we would see given nonexistence...and because this is a claim we should be able to make, even though it can never be known with any certainty, we should be allowed to infer nonexistence from the lack of evidence by putting the burden of proof on those making existential claims.

Just look at it this way:
If we say something exists, it could exist and give off evidence, or it could exist and the evidence could be hidden from us.

If we say something does not exist, the evidence would be hidden from us because there would be no evidence.

As you can see, existence is the only one that can be proven with any certainty. However, if we look at it from the point of view of scientific methodology, we can immediately see why inferring nonexistence from the lack of evidence is warranted: because this is the one claim that makes a specific prediction about what we would observe (absolutely no evidence) and because it could be falsified. A claim of existence absolutely could not be falsified, because there is no way to prove nonexistence.

Similar problems assault us when we think about inductive reasoning, in which we go from a certain number of observations (Five hundred swans I've observed are white) to a universalization (All swans are white). However, the absence of evidence of black swans is not evidence of their absence, according to you. This inductive inference would thus be discounted. And with it, the whole framework of science itself would tumble to the ground. You have to remember that our knowledge is indeed quite limited, and we make many assumptions in our daily lives that are quite uncertain...however, the fact that they can be falsified is what gives them merit.

You see, a scientific view, because it relies on induction, entails that one should infer nonexistence from an absence of evidence. First because this can be falsified. And second because that's exactly what we'd expect to see, given nonexistence. If you deny that we cannot use the absence of evidence to infer nonexistence, then any inductive inference goes out the window. You cannot believe that all humans have DNA simply because every observed human has DNA...this inductive inference assumes that because no falsifying observation of a human without DNA has occurred that humans without DNA do not exist. Just as the inference from observing several white swans leads one to conclude all swans are white--even though this inductive inference would then be assuming the nonexistence of black swans merely because there was no evidence of a black swan to falsify the claim.

So you see, it is just silly for agnostics and theists to assert that they do not need to meet a burden of proof for an existential claim, or to argue that one can't infer nonexistence from a lack of evidence.

Atheism is a leap of faith much like an inductive inference is a leap of faith, but I wouldn't say it is like the "leap of faith" used by religious people or theists.

Certainly it is a leap of faith to infer that your car will ALWAYS turn right when you turn the wheel right merely because you have observed that happen a few million times. You can't go from a few observations to saying ALL observations will be like that without some "leap of faith".

However, if a religious person were to say "faith" in God is just like that, obviously there would be a problem. Faith in God is not like that at all. The principle of induction is one of those things that just works, a pragmatically justified thing that also just seems intuitively correct. Even though induction is uncertain, we use it constantly and it leads to accurate results. This is not the case with faith in God.

My idea is that atheism is a lot like the leap of faith one makes in the principle of induction. Indeed, the principle of induction is based on the idea of inferring nonexistence from a lack of evidence. We assume our cars will go right when we turn right because of the lack of evidence to the contrary which would falsify this idea! We assume all swans are white if we have seen no black swans because of the lack of evidence of any black swans. We assume there are no black swans because we have seen none!

So you see, atheism is not a "leap of faith" like belief in God. It is a justifiable leap in faith, much like that made in inductive inferences...it is not like the totally unjustified and unwarranted leap of faith used by theists to justify their God.

1. You baldly assert this premise but give us no reason to think it's true. (That's called "begging the question.")

2. Even if "most definitions" of God refer to something that does not exist (as you assert), it remains to be seen whether or not some definitions refer to something that may exist.

3. I still say that I have not heard a definition of God that is intelligible enough to say whether or not it exists, and you have not yet contributed one.

Exactly.

quote:

---

Most people do not define God as something that has already been proven with abundant evidence, though. Instead, they will define it as a creator of the universe, or some perfect being, in most cases.

---

1. You baldly assert this premise but give us no reason to think it's true. (That's called "begging the question.")

2. What "most people" say about a proposition is irrelevant to its truth value.

Yes. "Semantics: The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form." My assertion is that virtually no one says what they mean by "God," and so it is not possible to answer whether or not it exists.

Exactly.

Close. It is pointless to address their "assertion" that some kind of something or other exists.

So you say, but I haven't noticed it.

Yes, and if you pursue this premise with them, you will find that it tends to recede into either mystery or truism. An operational definition of God, one that might allow us to distinguish it from other things and processes and determine whether or not exists, is, in my experience, never given.

Yes, and the usual response is like yours: Take terms like omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and perfect in such a way that they could not be true, of any God or anything else. So the argument becomes tautological and seems to me to refer to nothing but itself.

I'm glad you agree, but they are different statements, and you might save yourself a lot of boredom and frustration if you avoid asserting that there is "no evidence" for supernatural propositions (which happens to be technically false). Take it from me, you're just asking for an endless recitation of misinterpreted or dubious facts.

Now you're getting warm. Please articulate this argument and give some examples of philosophers or theologians who subscribe to it so that we can say whether or not the thing they're talking about exists.

Yes, let's do that. But not "most people's" (which I don't think we really know, if we're honest).

I still haven't seen the sort of definition of God that would permit us to say whether or not it exists.

EXACTLY. YOU HAVE HIT IT RIGHT ON THE HEAD.

EXACTLY WHAT I SAID TO YOU. YOU HAVE IT NOW!

What people, and what meaning?

No it isn't. If someone asks if you think something exists, it is reasonable to ask what they mean. If they can't answer, then neither can you. It's semantics alright, and it's anything but silly. It keeps you from jerking each other off with a bunch of meaningless words and sentences.

quote:

---

We don't need to define "good" for the argument to work. The argument from evil applies to a specific God...the one defined as an omnipotent, omnibenevolent creator of the universe. "Goodness" is already defined prior to the atheist's argument from evil, because the creator is defined as "omnibenevolent".

---

If "Goodness is already defined," I hadn't noticed. Just cut and paste the definition here. Should be simple enough.

And if it proves not so simple, then please entertain my proposition: That typical God talk is fraught with ill-defined, unintelligible, incoherent, and empty terms. Hot air, neither to be believed or disbelieved. Intuition robbed of mythology and clothed as logic.

Yes, if. And if those qualities themselves are defined in such a way that we might distinguish between things that have those qualities and things that don't. Otherwise, we are just blowing air up each other's asses.

God is omnipotent. This means he can do ANYTHING that is logically possible (anything that is not self-contradictory). This means God should be able to achieve such a higher good without permitting evil.

---

It is possible that the highest good is served by permitting the existence of evil, and that this good would not exist without evil (whatever those terms may mean). This has occurred to more than one theologian, as well as mystics in more than one age and on more than one continent. You might want to look into it.

Is it logically possible to create a reality where A exists without the existence of not-A? I doubt it.

Now, if "omnipotence" is defined as "able to do the logically impossible" then "omnipotence" is impossible; and if God is necessarily omnipotent by this definition, then God is impossible. All we have succeeded in doing here is defining "God" out of existence. Not too impressive-- the argument seems to me to refer only to itself, and not to anything out in the world as I know it.

But if "God's" sort of "omnipotence" permits it to do only the "logically possible," and if, by logic, A may only exist or be perceived given the existence or perception of not-A, then your problem of evil is solved. Do I have to spell it out the rest of the way?

As I said, it's occurred to a few people before.

Yeah, I agree.

---
What others say about boorite!

quote:

---

Nah, that's not what I'm saying. Here's a better representation:

---

What I presented was a syllogism. The structure you offer as "better" doesn't have this form and thus isn't comparable, and so I can't really say whether or not it's better. But if you put it in syllogistic form, I don't see how it's substantially different from my summation.

Actually, that is what you wrote, but I'll accept that it's not what you mean.

What annoys you has no bearing on the truth value (if any) of a given proposition.

quote:

---

This doesn't follow, because you haven't defined "valid" or "true" or "accepts" or "structure".

---

"Valid" and "true" are terms used of logical structures like the syllogism. They are nicely defined by the discipline of logic, which I was led to believe you were employing. But if you're unfamiliar with logic, I can give you some basic references, and then we can talk philosophy intelligibly.

No one (to my knowledge) has asserted that special terms like "valid" and "true," much less ordinary words like "accepts," lack intelligible definitions. This is exactly my assertion about the term "God" in the context of this thread, and pretty much everywhere I've heard the term used. So far, despite our exchange of many words, I've yet to see such a definition. (Might I therefore safely infer that it does not exist?)

quote:

---

Now you see why arguments about semantics and definitions are ridiculous and make me want to punch walls.

---

Don't do that.

---
What others say about boorite!

quote:

---

I really need to get laid.

Any takers?

---

Sure, let's fuck.

---
What others say about boorite!

BTW, Tasty, reading your other posts, I see that you have nicely articulated several major points that most people I've met spectacularly fail to understand. I just wish (for your sake) that you wouldn't waste your time on silly propositions with no truth value.

ooh can i blow u now omg lol

---
What others say about boorite!

good, good. that's what i set out to prove. that scientifically one is NOT "justified in taking that lack of evidence and disbelieving in God, because a lack of evidence is exactly what we'd find if something did not exist."

since you now state the same, it's time for me to leave this little town and get back on that lonely highway to heaven

actually your argument was that we are justified in inferring GOD'S nonexistence from a lack of evidence. a claim which you've already conceded is unscientific. let me refresh your memory with your exact quote:

"The only argument I'm making is that there is no evidence for God's existence, and one is justified in taking that lack of evidence and disbelieving in God, because a lack of evidence is exactly what we'd find if something did not exist."

i'm not one to tell you you can't have an opinion. everyone's entitled to one. my point was that it was unscientific, which you've now agreed with

that's easy. you falsify it. or you adopt the reverse hypothesis and verify it. happens all the time in science. if you test for it and evidence can't be found to either falsify or verify, then you say "data inconclusive." what you don't do is assume it doesn't exist because, again, an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

again, that's not correct. your evidence comes from competing theories/hypotheses. for example, it was believed by the ancient Egyptians that every night when the sun set, it went through an obstacle course of trials and tribulations fighting its way through so that it could rise again in the morning. according to you, the non-existence of this obstacle course could never be proven. however, the current scientific reasoning of the sun as a star and the earth revolving around it proves the non-existence of the believed solar obstacle course by way of evidence for a competing theory.

and come to think of it, even by empirical evidence alone. a simple example -- say i claim there is no cat on your lap. that's the hypothesis. well, using the scientific method, i run the test by observing what is on your lap. if there is a cat on your lap, then i have falsified the hypothesis. if there is no cat on your lap then i have verified the hypothesis. that is, i have verified the cat's non-existence

yes, but the point you miss, and it's a big one, is that a lack of evidence is EXACTLY what me might see given existence, as well.

an example: absolutely no scientific evidence that aliens exist. none. (boorite venkman might disagree with me.) heresay and stories but nothing that would classify as observable scientific evidence, i'm sure you agree. the existence of aliens currently has no means of being tested, save for the low low probability of SETI, and even that has proferred no evidence. okay, so no evidence for aliens. by your "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" reasoning, you'd say that aliens do not exist.

however, you go ask all the scientists of the world what they think and an overwhelming majority say that they believe in extraterrestrial life. why? not because of evidence obviously. because of the reasoning of how big the universe is and the assumption that earth-like planets under earth-like conditions would, like earth, produce life. so while you'd have us eliminate alien existence based on your faulty reasoning that absence of evidence equates to evidence of absence, i'd have us not state one way or another until more evidence is forthcoming. yours would eliminate a widely held belief by scientists, mine and the scientific method's would not.

and that's where your error is with the God's nonexistence argument, right there. you admit that "science is only equipped to deal with natural phenomenon. It does not say whether the supernatural exists or not exists."

so, if you admit that the supernatural is a question that can't be answered using the scientific method, since it is neither testable or observable, then you cannot make the claim that there is "absolutely no evidence" for a God, because that claim assumes it is either testable or observable. do you see your gaff? it's circuitous reasoning. "God is not a scientific question because it is neither testable or observable. And this lack of testable, observable evidence proves god doesn't exist." it's the exact form of the tautology boorite and kaufman were pointing out to you.

not at all because what you're doing isn't science. you've already admitted it outright. not sure why you're backpedalling, but let me give you an example to show why your above reasoning is flawed. instead of swan, i'll use bears. i live in woodsey North America. every bear i've ever seen is black or brown. therefore, using your faulty logic, black or brown bears are all that exist. you've ruled out the existence of polar bears a priori. sure you got lucky with the swan example, but you got unlucky with the bear example. science doesn't leave as much to luck as you would

you've already admitted that the scientific method would have one be agnostic:

"science is only equipped to deal with natural phenomenon. It does not say whether the supernatural exists or not exists. Keep in mind that I have never argued that science "disproves" God's existence. My own argument for inferring nonexistence is a philosophical one, not a scientific one..."

the only way for your above statement to be true about agnosticism being silly is to then say that the scientific method is "silly". since your whole argument heretofor has been based on the scientific method, conveniently abandoning it when you found your own methodology to be inconsistent with it, i look forward to watching you contradict yourself.

if however, you reiterate as you did above that "your argument is a philosophical one and not a scientific one" and that "science is only equipped to deal with natural phenomenon. It does not say whether the supernatural exists or not exists.", then you are conceding that all of your talk of "absence of evidence for God being evidence of absence" is just your opinion and unscientific. if that's the case, all i can say is everyone's entitled to their opinion. but this debate wasn't about opinion. it was about science. and you having already conceded it's an unscientific opinion, there isn't much more to talk about, since you've already made my case

---
what if nigger meant kite