There is no evidence for God

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Oh yeah by the way, God doesn't exist...
    You have made claim, may you provide your support?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    That is your opinion. You have a claim. Any person to have said or to say they are athiest is saying "there is no God." to have come to that decision because a lack of "evidence" it is an appeal to ignorance..
    You seem to misunderstand the concepts here. Atheists claim that, because there is no evidence to suggest the existence of a god, then there is no reason to believe that there is.

    "Argument from ignorance" only applies when making a positive claim, ie. you cannot claim god's existence because there is no evidence of his non-existence.

    The atheist is merely saying that if something is not there, it is reasonable to assume that it is not there until there is some evidence that it is there. It would be ridiculous to expect us to accept every spurious and unsupported claim until it has been proved untrue!

    If this is not true than no one would claim themselves to being an atheist when just being skeptical. you would just be agnostic. To have no claim. to admit you can not say God exists or does not exist
    Atheism and agnosticism are two separate concepts. They are not different points on the same scale. One is a qualifier of the other. Don't worry, it is a very common mistake, even amongst atheists!
    Personally, I am a gnostic atheist, but an agnostic adeist.
    You sound like a gnostic theist.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    You have made claim, may you provide your support?
    Try reading things in context. I was parodying the baseless certainty of other poster's comment.

    However, it can reasonably argued that the gods of the Quran and Bible do not exist because certain claims made within those books are demonstrably untrue.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    That is your opinion. You have a claim. Any person to have said or to say they are athiest is saying "there is no God." to have come to that decision because a lack of "evidence" it is an appeal to ignorance.

    If this is not true than no one would claim themselves to being an atheist when just being skeptical. you would just be agnostic. To have no claim. to admit you can not say God exists or does not exist.
    Not so. Atheists by and large do not make the positive claim that no god exists, rather that they lack a belief in God due to lack of evidence. Most atheists readily admit that they would convert if presented with sufficient and convincing evidence.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    That is your opinion. You have a claim. Any person to have said or to say they are athiest is saying "there is no God." to have come to that decision because a lack of "evidence" it is an appeal to ignorance.

    If this is not true than no one would claim themselves to being an atheist when just being skeptical. you would just be agnostic. To have no claim. to admit you can not say God exists or does not exist.
    I can't provide evidence that there is a massive undetectable BBC on your forehead.


    But can you provide me evidence that there isn't a massive undetectable BBC on your forehead.

    If neither can provide evidence who is right?


    If it is to be established that there is a God, then we have to have good grounds for believing that this is indeed so. Until and unless some such grounds are produced we have literally no reason at all for believing; and in that situation the only reasonable posture must be that of either the negative atheist or the agnostic. So the onus of proof has to rest on the proposition. It must be up to them: first, to give whatever sense they choose to the word 'God', meeting any objection that so defined it would relate only to an incoherent pseudo-concept; and, second, to bring forward sufficient reasons to warrant their claim that, in their present sense of the word 'God', there is a God.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Not so. Atheists by and large do not make the positive claim that no god exists, rather that they lack a belief in God due to lack of evidence. Most atheists readily admit that they would convert if presented with sufficient and convincing evidence.
    Is this not the definition?
    Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

    What is the difference between agnostic or atheist if both just lack belief? There would have to be some assertion.

    If anyone were to be open to the existence of a thing (in this case deity) then they would be neutral. Atheism has never been neutral.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Try reading things in context. I was parodying the baseless certainty of other poster's comment.

    However, it can reasonably argued that the gods of the Quran and Bible do not exist because certain claims made within those books are demonstrably untrue.
    I would love to go over them. However, would characteristics of a man dispute that man's existence?

    (Original post by QE2)
    You seem to misunderstand the concepts here. Atheists claim that, because there is no evidence to suggest the existence of a god, then there is no reason to believe that there is.
    1. I never heard an atheist say that. Even among the ones responding (which includes you) I have only seen or heard the claim "God does not exist."

    Still, disbelief does not go straight to no belief. Just because a person has a hard time accepting the evidence for God or any deity does not mean they should or would automatically jump to a conclusion of, "do not exist."

    "Argument from ignorance" only applies when making a positive claim, ie. you cannot claim god's existence because there is no evidence of his non-existence.
    Argument from ignorance, also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa)

    http://grammar.about.com/od/ab/g/appealignorterm.htm
    http://philosophy.lander.edu/scireas/ignorance.html
    "B. If one argues that God or telepathy, ghosts, or UFO's do not exist because their existence has not been proven beyond a shadow of doubt, then this fallacy occurs."

    http://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/re...Ignorance.html
    This fallacy occurs when you argue that your conclusion must be true, because there is no evidence against it. This fallacy wrongly shifts the burden of proof away from the one making the claim.

    The evidence suggests one does not need to make a "positive" claim in order to adhere to appeal to ignorance. HM...I guess I'll go with the evidence.

    The atheist is merely saying that if something is not there, it is reasonable to assume that it is not there until there is some evidence that it is there. It would be ridiculous to expect us to accept every spurious and unsupported claim until it has been proved untrue!
    Being neutral makes logical sense. Except neutral is not to say or assume that something is not present. Even assuming something is asserting a claim.

    Atheism and agnosticism are two separate concepts. They are not different points on the same scale. One is a qualifier of the other. Don't worry, it is a very common mistake, even among atheists!
    Personally, I am a gnostic atheist, but an agnostic adeist.
    You sound like a gnostic theist.
    How ?
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davidguettafan)
    So why do people still believe in God?
    (Original post by Retropattern)
    there is no evidence that god does not exist.
    This.
    (Original post by AshEntropy)
    There is also no evidence that a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist.
    Which is why we respect you for believing in such a thing.

    I would strongly recommend the film:
    God's not dead
    whichever side you're on, it examines both arguments.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Proxenus)
    I can't provide evidence that there is a massive undetectable BBC on your forehead.


    But can you provide me evidence that there isn't a massive undetectable BBC on your forehead.

    If neither can provide evidence who is right?
    Good concept, but the basis in comparison would be "if neither can provide evidence, what stance should I take?

    If you said this BBC is on my forehead and I said it is not, but neither could provide evidence to support either claim - then TED from left field would be unable to take your side or my side. It would be illogical for him to take your side just as it would be to take my side since TED would be unable to answer the question, "is there BBC on nolo's forehead?"

    So what stance would he take? NEUTRAL - he would not take any side. Atheism takes a side of "no God" and is not NEUTRAL.

    If it is to be established that there is a God, then we have to have good grounds for believing that this is indeed so. Until and unless some such grounds are produced we have literally no reason at all for believing; and in that situation the only reasonable posture must be that of either the negative atheist or the agnostic. So the onus of proof has to rest on the proposition. It must be up to them: first, to give whatever sense they choose to the word 'God', meeting any objection that so defined it would relate only to an incoherent pseudo-concept; and, second, to bring forward sufficient reasons to warrant their claim that, in their present sense of the word 'God', there is a God.
    Again, same as above. If you do not think there is enough evidence to believe in a claim then you do not automatically believe in the opposite. there has to be evidence for the opposite in order to believe in that as well.

    For example: John is in court for murder. Is John guilty or innocent?
    In civil law, if a case is dismissed - it means there is not enough evidence to judge a person as guilty. This does not mean they are innocent!!!!

    There is only three stances to take.
    1John is guilty.
    2John is innocent.
    3Neutral (not enough evidence to claim either)

    Of coarse, humans will respond emotionally.

    So, God may or may not exist is not the same as God does not exist. the position of being agnostic or an atheist falls back to the concept as to whether or not BBC is on my forehead. what stance should be taken?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    Is this not the definition?
    Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

    What is the difference between agnostic or atheist if both just lack belief? There would have to be some assertion.

    If anyone were to be open to the existence of a thing (in this case deity) then they would be neutral. Atheism has never been neutral.
    Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, the former is a descriptor or qualifier. Most atheists are in fact agnostic atheists.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    I agree with your key points, but it's interesting to note that historically, pretty much everyone believed in Gods plural, so when monotheist religions like Judaism and then its main offshoots, Christianity and Islam, emerged, the question wasn't about proving God existed but about claiming that *only one* God existed. That's why both of the two main holy scriptures bang on endlessly about only being the One God, etc, etc.

    A lot of religious people are kind of still stuck in that mindset, because they were brought up under the influence of those scriptures, so they imagine that the struggle is still between their One God model and multi-deity (eg, wrong) models. Even within them though, they are confusing, because Satan exists in both main religions - and appears to be Godlike - and both religions also contain minor deities, eg, angels and djinns and the like.

    A zero-deity model is relatively new in human affairs and not many people have been brought up in the context of it. (More in the ex-Communist world than in the non-Communist world.) So it's harder to contextualise because people don't have the mindset.

    In addition, many non-believers also believe in the actions of minor deities, such as sources of divination (astrology for example), cult leaders (Scientology, Mormonism, etc), Godlike political figures (Mao, Hitler, Stalin) and low-level associate spirits such as ghosts or troublesome 'bad luck' spirits, which are widely believed in.
    You may have presented a good argument for, "faith", being an integral part of man's makeup. Scripture says that every man is given a, "measure", of faith and is free to put it in anything he wishes. This may explain in what would seem tp be man's,"need", to believe in something.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldercon1953)
    You may have presented a good argument for, "faith", being an integral part of man's makeup. Scripture says that every man is given a, "measure", of faith and is free to put it in anything he wishes. This may explain in what would seem tp be man's,"need", to believe in something.
    You can call it 'faith' if you want to. We non-believers call it 'childlike belief', 'pursuit of simplistic but muddle headed explanations' or 'false belief syndrome', to name but a few.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofsurprises)
    You can call it 'faith' if you want to. We non-believers call it 'childlike belief', 'pursuit of simplistic but muddle headed explanations' or 'false belief syndrome', to name but a few.
    You have no faith in science? You'll say that science is logical. That it makes sense.
    If you look to science to explain the world and your place in it then you've put your faith in science.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, the former is a descriptor or qualifier. Most atheists are in fact agnostic atheists.
    You just reiterated what has already been said. Why should I change my mind when definitions do not illustrate what you are saying?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Because they've been brainwashed
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by da_nolo)
    You just reiterated what has already been said. Why should I change my mind when definitions do not illustrate what you are saying?
    They do illustrate that, atheism is primarily a lack of belief and it is the way most atheists think. It's disingenuous to claim otherwise.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Guys, as a general thing, I'm just surprised that it hasn't rung out as odd - the title of the thread is "There is no evidence for God", just as ppl having been repeating for the past 50 years at least. Why are you actually still bothering? Come to think of it, why is everyone so intrigued by the idea of God; isn't He just some old myth which we still cling to for no particular reason, or because over half the World's population is delusional? There's no evidence for; neither is there any against. So why can't you just get rid of this terrible thing once and for all? And what's actually the driving force behind all those people throughout history, who attribute their success to God? Why would a rational human actually give their life by free will to a make-believe Being? And why does it so often result in a positive change? What about all the "miraculous" healings recorded throughout history? There are an awful lot of things we need to attribute to chance, here...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davidguettafan)
    So why do people still believe in God?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Why is there something instead of nothing? Where did the "something" come from?

    BTW: Don't make the mistake of confusing [flawed] expression of religion with the existence of God. Two separate issues!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Treblebee)
    Come to think of it, why is everyone so intrigued by the idea of God; isn't He just some old myth which we still cling to for no particular reason, or because over half the World's population is delusional?
    Yup. The vast majority of religious people are brought up by their parents in their parents' religion from birth. The power of indoctrination on the young mind is, especially among the uneducated, is incredible. This is why educated people have a better chance of escaping the tyranny of superstition.

    (Original post by Treblebee)
    There's no evidence for; neither is there any against.
    Well, yes, there is plenty of evidence against the existence of gods. The knowledge that people have invented religions, that much of what is found in religious tracts is provably wrong (which calls into immediate question the rest) is just the starting point for a genuine unbiased examination of whether the existence of gods is likely.

    (Original post by Treblebee)
    And what's actually the driving force behind all those people throughout history, who attribute their success to God? Why would a rational human actually give their life by free will to a make-believe Being?
    Human psychology and emotion primarily: the need to think there is an afterlife, a need for explanation for our existence, being misled or fooled, you name it, there are many reasons.

    (Original post by Treblebee)
    And why does it so often result in a positive change?
    Strong motivation and drive to succeed, from whatever original motivation, even a false or mistaken one, makes a huge difference - obviously.

    (Original post by Treblebee)
    What about all the "miraculous" healings recorded throughout history?
    What about them? There have been charlatans and magicians throughout history. You can pay to see them mystify and amaze you in the name of entertainment anywhere. You can also pay to have a subset of them mislead you into thinking they have connections with deities and the afterlife; they are using the same tricks, just with different claims.

    (Original post by Treblebee)
    There are an awful lot of things we need to attribute to chance, here...
    Not as may as you seem to think and, anyway, add an enormously long period of time or a huge number of potential occurrences to the mix and a low probability event can become a near certainty.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Yup. The vast majority of religious people are brought up by their parents in their parents' religion from birth. The power of indoctrination on the young mind is, especially among the uneducated, is incredible. This is why educated people have a better chance of escaping the tyranny of superstition.


    You are probably aware that everybody, whatever their circumstance, whether they grew up in a religion or not, reaches a stage wherein they can make their own choice. Sometimes, they choose to leave it - and they didn't necessarily come from educated families. Sometimes the mere feel of indoctrination (if their parents go to extremes) may put them off. But very often, people who have grown up in atheist families will convert to a religion. It doesn't depend on whether their mind is closed, it depends on whether it is open.

    Well, yes, there is plenty of evidence against the existence of gods. The knowledge that people have invented religions, that much of what is found in religious tracts is provably wrong (which calls into immediate question the rest) is just the starting point for a genuine unbiased examination of whether the existence of gods is likely.

    The "knowledge"? You claim that you have this knowledge, yet there is no actual proof. How do you know it was "invented"? That's only from the human perspective. Plus, I cannot speak for other religions, but I do know that the Bible is found to be so accurate that historians often use it as a source of evidence. You will undoubtedly discover, should you take the time and effort to do so, that every single one of the prophesies in the Bible about a time that has already passed have come true. As a few examples, the rise of the Roman Empire was prophesied hundreds of years before it came about (you can check the dates), and, as one of Jesus' many prophesies, the Temple in Jerusalem collapsed. Is it the word "prophesy" which puts you off?

    Human psychology and emotion primarily: the need to think there is an afterlife, a need for explanation for our existence, being misled or fooled, you name it, there are many reasons.

    Why do we need to think there is an afterlife? Why do we need an explanation for our existence?

    Strong motivation and drive to succeed, from whatever original motivation, even a false or mistaken one, makes a huge difference - obviously.

    That's got to be one whopping big false drive there, to suddenly make school drop-outs sound incredibly educated (the fishermen), to persuade rich, affluent people to suddenly give all their wealth away, to convince random people to travel all across the world on what turn out to be very successful missions (and not just down to themselves), to fill previously self-centred people with the unexplainably strong desire to help the poor... sounds like something I might want to check out!

    What about them? There have been charlatans and magicians throughout history. You can pay to see them mystify and amaze you in the name of entertainment anywhere. You can also pay to have a subset of them mislead you into thinking they have connections with deities and the afterlife; they are using the same tricks, just with different claims.

    I'm sure people from three centuries ago would have been convinced that the technology today is magic. Why? Because, the way they see the world (and that must be right, mustn't it?), such things are simply, plainly, flatly impossible. Magic. Definitely.

    Not as may as you seem to think and, anyway, add an enormously long period of time or a huge number of potential occurrences to the mix and a low probability event can become a near certainty.
    To sum up, we're both standing on even ground, here. We are, each of us, so utterly convinced that we are right and that the other is wrong, that we will not listen to what the other is saying, but just hope that the other will see how wrong they are, and change their belief. A tricky situation, then!


    NB check the "see more" bit...
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 16, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Would you rather have...?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.